Disposed

Mysore Mercantile Company Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023WA/980/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against interlocutory order vacating an interim stay on land acquisition for pipeline laying. Court leaned on respondent's undertaking to provide temporary access and restore road, disposed appeal, keeping final contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of; interlocutory order confirming vacation of stay allowed; substantive contentions kept open.

Mysore Mercantile Company Limited Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36755-DB WA No. 980 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 980 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MYSORE MERCANTILE COMPANY LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND PRESENTLY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MYSORE MERCANTILE HOUSE, NO.46, 3^RD AND 4^TH FLOORS, 36^TH CROSS, (BETWEEN 20^TH AND 22^ND MAIN), JAYANAGAR 4^TH T BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 041, REP BY ITS MANAGING DRIECTOR, SRI H SRINIVASA SHETTY.

¶13

(BY SRI. P S RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. MUJTABA H.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, (LAND ACQUISITION), M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36755-DB WA No. 980 of 2023

¶18

THE UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, (LAND ACQUISITION 1 AND 3), VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, 1^ST FLOOR, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BANGALORE-MANGALORE HIGHWAY, HASSAN-573 201.

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, YETTINAHOLE SCHEME, 4^TH CROSS ROAD, MASTI VENKATESHA IYENGAR ROAD, KUVEMPUR NAGAR, HASSAN-573 201.

¶21

VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE, REGISTERED OFFICE AT I-148, EMBASSY SQUARE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶22

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED, YETTINAHOLE PROJECT ZONE, VJNL OFFICES COMPLEX, HEMAVATHI COLONY, KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI, TUMKURU-572 102.

¶23

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAM LIMITED, YETTINAHOLE PROJECT, DIVISION NO.1, B.M. ROAD, BEHIND INDIRA CANTEEN, SAKLESHPURA-573 134, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36755-DB WA No. 980 of 2023

¶25

MR. M.K.RAMESH, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, YETTINAHOLE SCHEME, 4^TH CROSS ROAD, MASTI VENKATESHA IYENGAR ROAD, KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573 201.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI.S S NAGANAND., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.CHETAN KUMAR H.,ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5 (CP No.12040/23)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 R/W RULE 26 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1977 PRAYING TO A)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/07/2023 PASSED BY THE HON BLE SINGLE JUDGE ON IA NO.2/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5028/2023 AND B) CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION IA NO.2/2023 FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 IN WP NO.5028/2023 AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This intra-Court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to the interlocutory order dated 27.07.2023 whereby, I.A.No.2/2023 filed by respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 in W.P.No.5028/2023 having been favoured, the ad interim order dated 07.03.2023 has been vacated.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36755-DB WA No. 980 of 2023

¶32

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

¶33

appellant seeks to falter the impugned order mainly pressing into service particular stand of the contesting respondents taken up at para 18 of their Statement of Objections. He draws our attention to para 36 of the impugned order wherein the said para has been reproduced to the relevant extent. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents having highlighted the justification for the impugned order, in all fairness agrees to abide by what has been stated in para 18 of the Statement of Objections.

¶34

It is relevant to reproduce para 18 of the Statement of Objections as has been referred to in para 36 of the impugned order. The same reads as under:

¶35

”36. It must be noticed that the objections filed by the petitioner (see Annexure-S page 149 of Writ Petition) before the Land Acquisition Officer as regards the Preliminary Notification are essentially on the aspect regarding the proposed acquisition of the road and it is asserted that if the road is disconnected, then the entire property will be cut off. It must also be noticed that it is the specific case of the petitioners at para-3 that at an earlier point of time, they were willing to grant 'right to

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36755-DB WA No. 980 of 2023

¶37

use' subject to entering into a Facilitation Agreement, which would be in lieu of statutory land acquisition. The apprehension regarding the irreparable loss if 'right to use of the road' is interfered with, is taken care by the undertaking of . respondent Nos.5 to 7 as contained in the proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the statement of objections filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 at para-18, it is observed as follows:-

¶38

"18. ... With regard to the claim of the petitioner that the petition Schedule B Property is the only access to its other lands, Respondent No.5 also stated that petitioner had access to its lands from Bangalore-Mangalore Highway through Kyanahalli, however, notwithstanding the same, the Respondent No.5, unequivocally undertook to provide a temporary access through the petition Schedule B Property, while the Respondent No.5 was undertaking the work of laying the pipeline, and also undertook to restore the road on the Petition Schedule B Property, to its original status, after the work of laying of pipeline is complete and give unhindered access to the petitioner to the existing road on Schedule B Property..."

¶39

There is force in the submission of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant that the contesting respondents in terms of their stand as mentioned above have to complete the pipeline work in the subject property on a war footing and thereby provide unhindered access to the appellant to enjoy his property and take up other

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36755-DB WA No. 980 of 2023

¶41

activities. It is submitted on behalf of the contesting respondents that the said task would be accomplished expeditiously and in any circumstance, within four days. He also agrees to restore other facilities as are required for making the access to the property and its use efficacious and meaningful.

¶42

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed off, keeping open all contentions of the parties for being urged in the writ petition, without being influenced by whatever is being observed hereinabove. Costs made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

cbc

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Mysore Mercantile Company Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mysore Mercantile Company Limited v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt Shahnawaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ravi Vs Hassan Urban Development Authority

Sri Chikkachannappa Vs Dr. Ajay Nagabhushan M.N.

Sri Gavisiddaiah Vs Sri Shiva Kumar

Sqd. Ldr. Dr. Praveen Kumar Bourshetty Vs Mrs. Vineetha Thomas

M/S Divyajyothi Vidya Kendra Vs Karnataka Housing Board