Partly allowed

Chandramma v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2022WP/4791/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka held that 'A' kharab land, being uncultivable, is not government property and the beneficiary must pay compensation to the landowner for the undisputed police kharab acreage while retaining the right to adjudicate the disputed portion.

What did the court decide?

The First Respondent was directed to pay compensation and interest for 25 guntas of 'A' kharab land. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner for adjudicat

Chandramma Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4791/2021(LA RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

CHANDRAMMA W/O LAKKE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, MATTHIKERE GRAMA BOOKANAKERE HOBLI K.R.PETE TALUK

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

1 . THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD NO.10, H.L.B.C. SUB DIVISION BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 812.

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, MANDYA MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. C.N.MAHADESHWARA, AGA FOR R2 & R3;

¶16

¶17

SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 19.11.2020 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNX-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER FOR HAVING ACQUIRED 28.4 GUNTAS OF LAND SITUATED AT SY.NO.51/1, MATTHIKERE VILLAGE, BHOOKANAKERE HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner, who has staked a claim for compensation upon acquisition of land in Sy No.51/1 of Matthikere Village, Bhookanakere Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, has sought for the following reliefs:

¶22

“ a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 19.11.2020 issued by R1 bearing No.Sa.Ka.En/HenUV-10/Kikkeri/SA.No2/Matthikere/Bhu.Swa.Kharabu/251/2020-2021 as per Annexure-A, and

¶23

b) To direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for having acquired 28.4 guntas of land situated at Sy.No.51/1,

¶24

¶25

Matthikere Village, Bhookanakere Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk.”

¶26

The first respondent has issued the

¶27

impugned endorsement dated 19.11.2020 after this Court’s order dated 11.01.2019 in W.P.No.5382453825/2018 [LA-RES]. The petitioner contends that she is entitled for compensation for the total extent of 36 guntas in the aforesaid Sy. No.51/1 and she is admittedly paid compensation only for the 6 guntas. The present dispute is confined to the remaining extent of 30 guntas. Initially, the petitioner is refused compensation for this extent based on Minutes of Meeting held on 23.03.2020, and after this Court’s order dated 11.01.2019 in the aforesaid writ petition, the claim for compensation for 30 guntas is rejected for the reason which reads as under:

¶28

“CqÀUÉÆåÃ ¸ÀºÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¢£ÀAzÀ 06.10.2020gÀ°è

¶29

¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¥ÁvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 51/1 gÀ°è 0-30UÀÄAmÉ UÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. ¸ÀªÉðAiÉÆgï ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀªÉð zÁR¯ÉAiÀiÁzÀ

¶30

¶31

DPÀgÀ§A¢£ÀAvÉ 51/1gÀ°è MlÄÖ «¹ÛÃtð 0-32.08 UÀÄAmÉ EzÀÄÝ. EzÀgÀ°è 0.25 UÀÄAmÉ “D” RgÁ§Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 0-01.08 “§” RgÁ¨ï EzÀÄÝ. G½zÀ ¨ÁQ 0-06 UÀÄAmÉUÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄwÛÃj”.

¶32

Sri. Nagendra Naik R., learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that with the first respondent admitting that an extent of 25 guntas is ‘ A ’ kharab land, the petitioner could not have been refused compensation for this extent. The premise that even ‘A’ kharab land is a Government land is contrary to the decision of this Court in Sadashivaiah and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors¹ . Sri. Nagendra Naik R. submits that this Court therefore must direct the first respondent to pay compensation for the undisputed ‘ A’ kharab extent of 25 guntas with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedy with the respondents after appropriate decision by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner insofar as the remaining 5 guntas of land.

¶33

1 ILR 2003 KAR 5088

¶34

¶35

Sri. C.N.Mahadeshwara, learned Additional

¶36

Government Advocate does not controvert that the enunciation of law by this Court in Sadashivaiah and Ors (supra) would apply to the present case insofar as 25 guntas of land which is admittedly ‘ A ’ kharab. Insofar as the controversy about the extent of ‘ B ’ kharab and the petitioner’s claim for compensation thereto, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in view of the discrepancy in the measurement as mentioned in the Minutes of Meeting on 23.03.2020 and Annexure-A, the petitioner may be given liberty to file appropriate representation with the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner with further liberty to the petitioner to approach for additional compensation if it is decided by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner after hearing the petitioner and the first respondent that the remaining extent viz ., 5 guntas is also ‘ A ’ kharab.

¶37

¶38

Sri. K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the

¶39

first respondent, is categorical in his submission that compensation for 6 guntas is paid in view of the decision of the Competent Authority as recorded in the Minutes of Meeting held on 23.03.2020 and because even ‘ A ’ kharab land would not be under cultivation and not assessed for taxes, the same must be treated as Government land. Insofar as the petitioner’s claim for interest, Sri. K.S.Bheemaiah submits that the first respondent, though the beneficiary, cannot be saddled with the responsibility of paying interest as the first respondent has bonafide paid undisputed compensation.

¶40

This Court on the previous hearing date has framed the following question for consideration:

¶41

“Whether the beneficiary, the first respondent is justified in denying the

¶42

¶43

compensation for an extent of 0.28.4 guntas on the ground that this extent is A-kharab and therefore government property.”

¶44

This Court must at the first instance refer to the following enunciation of this Court in Sadashivaiah and Ors (supra):

¶45

“30. The Land Acquisition Officer has declined to pass the award on yet another ground that the land involved in W.P. Nos. 7540 & 91559204/2001 is a kharab land and therefore it does not belong to the petitioners. In this regard it is necessary to know what a kharab land is and what are the rights which flow. Kharab land is so called because it is not cultivable and is classification made for purposes of revenue exemption, Kharab land is also capable of ownership and cannot be regarded as an adjunct to cultivable land which gets transferred along with the cultivable land. Acquisition of title to the kharab land is similar to acquisition of title to the cultivable land. The word "Phut Kharab" and 'pot' kharab mean and have reference to a land which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unfit for cultivation. Every pot kharab land does not belong to government. For the purpose of assessment, the uncultivable portion of the land or phut kharab portion of the land is excluded from consideration on the ground that it is cultivable. But it does not cease to belong to the owner of the survey number. In volume I of the Mysore Revenue Manual, the word kharab is explained in this way. The expression 'phut kharab' is similar to the expression 'pot kharab'.

¶46

¶47

That is so, is clear from the Mysore Revenue Survey Manual where at page 68 the words 'pot kharab' land is defined thus:

¶48

"(13). Pot kharab means a piece of pieces of land classed as un-arable and included in a survey number".

¶49

The description has no relevance to ownership. The expression put kharab is explained in Gupte's book on the Bombay Land Revenue Code in the following words at page 278"-

¶50

"By the term 'pot kharab' is meant 'barren or uncultivable land included in an assessed survey number' and includes 'any land comprised in a survey number. Which from any reason is held not to be likely to be brought under cultivation..........."

¶51

When it is presently admitted that an extent

¶52

of 25 guntas in Sy.No.51/1 of Matthikere Village, Bhookanakere Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk is ‘ A ’ kharab land, the petitioner cannot be denied compensation or the interest payable for such land. Hence, the petitioner must succeed on this ground. There is dispute about the remaining 5 guntas with the petitioner asserting that this 5 guntas would also be ‘ A ’ kharab land and the first respondent seriously contesting the same. Insofar

¶53

¶54

as this dispute over the 5 guntas, no directions can be issued for payment of compensation or interest as the dispute will have to be decided upon scrutiny of the relevant records by the concerned, but the petitioner must have liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate, and to further approach the first respondent for compensation in case it is ascertained by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner that even the remaining extent, or any portion, is ‘A’ kharab land. Hence, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

a. The petition stands disposed of directing the first respondent – the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mandya District - to pay

¶57

compensation, with permissible interest, for 25 guntas of ‘A’ kharab in Sy.No.51/1 of

¶58

¶59

Matthikere Village, Bhookanakere Hobli,

¶60

K.R.Pete Taluk.

¶61

b. The petitioner to facilitate payment of such compensation without delay, shall be at liberty to file a representation with the first respondent in this regard within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and the first respondent shall inform the petitioner about the status of the consideration within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of representation;

¶62

c. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to file a representation with the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner for adjudication insofar as the remaining 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.51/1 of Matthikere Village, Bhookanakere Hobli,

¶63

¶64

K.R.Pete Taluk and with further liberty to approach the first respondent for compensation and interest in the event there is any adjudication in favour of the petitioner.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

Chandramma v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramma v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Manukuppe Chikkavenkataiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Sri Giri Bar and Restaurant Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raviprakash Rathod Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri K Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka