Allowed

Sri Puttaswamygowda v. Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2022WP/830/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, dealing with a writ petition challenging the delay in passing orders on a representation regarding land acquisition compensation, allowed the petition and directed the respondent to consider a new submission within a specific timeline.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioners to file a new representation with documents in one month; directed respondent to pass orders in two months.

Sri Puttaswamygowda Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 830 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 830 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI PUTTASWAMYGOWDA S/O KALEGOWDA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶11

SRI RANGEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶13

SRI EREGOWDA

¶14

S/O SOOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE R/O HALEKUNCHE VILLAGE, DODDAKUNCHE POST HALEKOTE HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

Digitally signed by NIRMALADEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

AND:

¶20

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER HEMAVATHI IRRIGATION PROJECT-II OFFICE AT DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE BUILDING HASSAN-573116

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 830 of 2022

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for the

¶29

respondent.

¶30

The petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioners vide Annexure-A and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.

¶32

(b) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the ase including an order as to costs.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioners is that though

¶34

compensation has been awarded to the petitioners, 25% of the award amount was deducted on account of depriciation.

¶35

Sri Rajarama. S., learned counsel for the petitioners

¶36

submitted that the deduction has been made only insofar as the petitioners are concerned and no such

¶37

¶38

WP No. 830 of 2022

¶39

deduction is made in respect of neighbouring land owners. It is in this background, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 30.09.2015 in terms of Annexure-A. The representation having been submitted in the year 2015, no order has been passed till date.

¶40

It is mandate of law that whenever any representation or application is made, the Authority concerned is required to pass an order of either accepting the application or rejecting the same. The respondent could not have sat quite for seven years without passing any order.

¶41

In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed.

¶42

The petitioners are permitted to make one more representation along with documents to the respondent within one month from today. The respondent is directed to pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law within two months

¶43

¶44

WP No. 830 of 2022

¶45

from the date of the receipt of the representation

¶46

along with necessary documents.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sri Puttaswamygowda v. Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puttaswamygowda v. Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mother Teresa Educational Trust (R) Vs Bangalore Development Authority

M/S Dsr Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Justice N D Krishna Rao Memorial Trust Vs the Commissioner

Smt S Chitra Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Development

Smt Sannamma Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka Road Development Vs Sri Nanjundaiah