Disposed

Smt. Basamma W/O Shankrappa Timmaraddi v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2023WP/100157/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a landowner against Respondents carrying out railway work on land alleged to be acquired without due process. The Court directed Respondents to consider pending representations within specified time limits.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 1 to consider representation within two months; Respondent No. 2 to consider future representation within three months.

Smt. Basamma W/O Shankrappa Timmaraddi Vs the Special… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 100157 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 100157 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.BASAMMA, W/O SHANKRAPPA TIMMARADDI, AGE ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE HOLD, RESIDENT OF TALAKAL, TQ: KUKANOOR, DISTRICT KOPPAL-583232.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.B.HALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 33/A, LAKAMANAHALLI INDUSTARIL AREA, P B ROAD, DHARWAD-580004.

¶13

THE GENERAL DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI.

¶14

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2023.01.2712:36:15 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. M.B.KANAVI, CGSC FOR R2)

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT DIRECTED NOT TO CARRY ANY FURTHER RAILWAY TRACK WORK OF GADAG TO VADI RAILWAY TRACK ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE PETITIONER BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 859/6 MEASURING 4 ACRES 18 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KUKANOOR HOOBALI

¶18

¶19

WP No. 100157 of 2023

¶20

TQ.KUKANOOR DISTRICT KOPPAL AND ALSO NOT USE REMAINING UNACQUIRED LAND OF THE PETITIONER OF THE SAME SURVEY NUMBER FOR THEIR OWN USE, STILL ACQUISITION OF THE SAME WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. FURTHER THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 23/04/2022 SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – I.A., THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for

¶24

the following reliefs:

¶25

“Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any direction to the respondent directed not to carry any further railway track work of Gadag to Vadi railway track on the agricultural land of the petitioner bearing Survey Number 859/6 measuring 4 acres 18 guntas situated at Kukanoor Hoobali Tq.Kukanoor dist: Koppal and also not use remaining unacquired land of the petitioner of the same survey number for their own use, still acquisition of the same without due process of the law. Further this Hon’ble Court be pleased direct the respondent to consider representation represented by the petitioner to the

¶26

¶27

WP No. 100157 of 2023

¶28

respondent dated 23.04.2022 same is produced at Annexure-E.

¶29

Any other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the ends of justice.”

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶31

The material on record discloses that it is the grievance of the petitioner that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.859/6 measuring 4 acres 18 guntas in which, the respondents are carrying out railway lane work without following due process of law and without taking recourse to such acquisition proceedings.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed a memo enclosing the copy of the sketch to indicate that out of the total extent of 4 acres 18 guntas, the respondents are carrying out railway work laying only in a portion measuring 26

¶33

¶34

WP No. 100157 of 2023

¶35

guntas which has been duly acquired in accordance with law.

¶36

The memo filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.

¶37

The material on record also discloses that despite the petitioner submitting a representation at Annexure-E dated 23.04.2022, respondent No.1 has not considered the same and has not passed any orders nor taken any decision in this regard so far. In this context, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the work is being carried out by respondent No.2/railways and the suitable representation would have to be submitted to respondent No.2 in this regard. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would submit suitable representation to respondent No.2 also.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid facts and

¶39

circumstances and submissions made at the bar and

¶40

¶41

WP No. 100157 of 2023

¶42

the sketch produced by respondent No.1 along with the memo of even date, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose off this petition directing respondent No.1

¶43

to consider and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate decision on the representation dated 23.04.2022 submitted by the petitioner. So also in the event the petitioner submits one more representation to respondent No.2, respondent No.2 shall also consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶44

Respondent No.1 shall consider and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and respondent No.2 to consider the same within a period of three months from the date of submission of the representation.

¶45

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.

¶46

SD JUDGE

¶47

CLK

Smt. Basamma W/O Shankrappa Timmaraddi v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Basamma W/O Shankrappa Timmaraddi v. the Special Land Acquisition 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

Koppal District Madiga Khemabhivrudi Sangh (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula W/O Sachin Vani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Basanagouda Shanmukhappa Patil Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Jayalakshmi W/O. Late M Sakrappa @ Shankrappa Vs the Secretary

Sri. a. Veeranagouda S/O Late a Gavisiddanagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanmukappa S/O Shivappa Kalmetler and Others Vs Nagaraj S/O Shivappa Kalmetler and Others