Allowed

Manjaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2022WP/23299/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka directed that land acquired for Hemavathi Reservoir Project be regranted to legal heirs of Javaraiah based on prior possession. Court ordered special officer to allot alternative land to legal heirs of petitioner's father, Giddaiah, within six months. Writ petition dismissed confirming impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 7.4.2012 confirmed; land regranted to Javaraiah's heirs; alternative land for petitioner to be allotted within six months.

Manjaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 23299 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 23299 OF 2013 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJAIAH

¶9

S/O LATE GIDDAIAH AGED 35 YEARS R/O VIJAPURA VILLAGE CHIKKA ARAKALUGUDU POST ARAKALAGUDU TALUK

¶10

HASSAN DISTRICT-573102

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. H MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (REHABILITATION) HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT COLONY HASSAN-573201

¶17

JAVARAIAH S/O LAKKAIAH

¶18

SINCE DECEASED BY LRS

¶19

¶20

WP No. 23299 of 2013

¶21

3(a) KAMALAMMA

¶22

W/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶23

3(b) HARENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶24

3(c) SHYLESHARI D/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶25

3(d) MANIKANTA

¶26

S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶27

3(e) PAVITHRA

¶28

S/O LATE JAVARAIAH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶29

RESPONDENTS 3(a) TO (e) ARE R/AT VIJAPURA VILLAGE CHIKKA ARAKALUGUDU POST ARAKALAGUDU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573102

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI.SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2

¶32

SRI G.V.NARASIMHAMURTHY, ADV. FOR R3 (a) TO (e))

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.4.2012 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.773/2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 23299 of 2013

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶39

The petitioner’s father Giddaiah and the third respondent Javaraiah lost their lands for the Hemavathi Reservoir Project. In terms of the scheme envisaged by the State Government, all displaced persons were entitled for grant of alternative agricultural lands. The dispute between the parties dates back even prior to the year 1983. There have been several rounds of litigations and the matter has been moving to and fro with the decision, leaving the parties running from pillar to post.

¶40

This Court directed the learned HCGP to furnish the original records and consequently, the learned HCGP has furnished the original records. On going through the original records, this Court finds that at the very first instance, when the dispute was brought before the Special Deputy Commissioner, the Special Deputy Commissioner

¶41

¶42

WP No. 23299 of 2013

¶43

having secured the original records and causing inspection, gave the factual findings in R.A.No.45/1980-81 (dated 15.09.1983). On going through the said order, it is clear that both the parties are displaced persons and both of them are entitled for grant of alternative lands.

¶44

However, in terms of the factual findings given by the Special Deputy Commissioner in his order dated 15.09.1983, this Court finds that 4 acres of land in Sy.No.1, Block No.117, Vijapura Village, Arkalagudu has been in possession of Sri Javaraiah, the third respondent herein, since dead and represented by his legal representatives, for more than 6-7 years even prior to 1983. On the contrary, it was found that though Giddaiah who was also a displaced person moved out of the Village and settled at Chowdahalli, Hassan taluk, was granted the said land. Therefore, objections were raised at the hands of Javaraiah. The Special Deputy Commissioner caused an

¶45

enquiry at the hands of the Revenue Inspector and the Revenue Inspector reported back to the Special Deputy Commissioner that Sri Javaraiah was indeed in possession

¶46

¶47

WP No. 23299 of 2013

¶48

of the land in question for about 6-7 years prior to 1983 and whereas, Giddaiah had relocated and was residing at

¶49

Chowdahalli and not at Vijayapura.

¶50

Having noticed all these factual aspects, the Special Deputy Commissioner directed cancellation of the grant made in favour of Giddaiah while regranting the very same land in favour of Sri Javaraiah. At the same time, directions were also issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner to identify an alternative land to be allotted in favour of Giddaiah.

¶51

This Court has heard the learned Counsels for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, learned HCGP for the revenue authorities and perused the petition papers including the original records.

¶52

In the considered opinion of this Court, no useful purpose would be served if the matter is kept pending and remanded for fresh consideration, since nothing more can fall out of more than what has already been placed on record. That being the position, this Court is also of the

¶53

¶54

WP No. 23299 of 2013

¶55

considered opinion that the land in question should be regranted in favour of the legal heirs of Sri Javaraiah, who continue to be in possession of the land in question. At the same time, directions are hereby given to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, to identify and allot 4 acres of alternative land in favour of the legal heirs of Giddaiah including the petitioner herein and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible. At any rate, the Special Deputy Commissioner, shall identify a suitable land for the legal heirs of Giddaiah within a period of six months, failing which, the petitioner is permitted to move this Court to reconsider the matter.

¶56

Consequently the writ petition is disposed of while confirming the impugned order dated 7.4.2012 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.773/2005.

¶57

Ordered accordingly.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

JT/-

Manjaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjaiah v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muneppa @Moogappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri G P Basavarajappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Ramachandra Vs the Tahsildar and Secretary

Mr M a Colasco Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. v. Shantharam Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. N. M. Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka