Disposed

Gangappa Sidramappa Teli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2023WP/101358/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged acquisition notifications as void due to inordinate delay. The court dismissed prayers quashing the notifications on laches but directed respondents to consider pending representations and order on redelivery of unutilized plots within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of notifications dismissed; direction to respondents to consider representations and pass appropriate orders on redelivery of unutilized plots within 3 months.

Gangappa Sidramappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101358 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 101358 OF 2016 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGAPPA SIDRAMAPPA TELI

¶9

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶10

1a) LAXMIBAI W/O GANGAPPA TELI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, DECEASED BY LRS

¶11

1b) ANNAVVA W/O BASAPPA TELI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶12

1c) RAVI S/O SHRISHAIL TELI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶13

1d) BALAPPA S/O OGANGAPPA TELI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶14

1e) MAHANANDA W/O BALAPPA APPANAGOL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶15

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶16

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2023.01.14 11:17:56 +0530

¶17

1f) RENUKA W/O LINGAPPA KADDI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶18

1g) PARVATI W/O MAHADEV TELI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶19

1h) RAJESHWARI W/O CHETAN TELI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶20

SHIVALING S/O SIDRAMAPPA TELI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

¶21

2a) GOURAVVA W/O SHIVALING TELI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶22

2b) MAHALINGAPPA S/O GURAPPA TELI, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶23

¶24

WP No. 101358 of 2016

¶25

2c) BASAVARAJ S/O MAHALINGAPPA TELI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶26

2d) HANUMANT S/O OMAHALINGAPPA TELI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶27

2e) SUKHDEV S/O MAHALINGAPPA TELI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶28

2f) SHANTAVVA W/O ADIVEPPA BIRADAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/OALL ARE RESIDENT OF MUDHOL, TALUK: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.

¶29

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

¶30

PETITIONERS

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPT. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT, BENGALURU.

¶33

THE GENERAL MANAGER, REHABILITATION AND RE CONSTRUCTION UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶34

THE COMMISSIONER, THE REHABILITATION AND LAND ACQUISTION UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶35

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶36

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶37

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, REHABILITATION, SUB-DIVISION NO.2, ATHANI, CAMPT AT MUDHOL.

¶38

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1-R6)

¶39

¶40

WP No. 101358 of 2016

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.04.1996 VIDE ANNEXURE-C & ETC.

¶42

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

¶43

ORDER

¶44

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs.

¶45

1. Issue a writ in the nature certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 4^th respondent dated 22.4.1996 U/s 4(10 of the Land Acquisition Act produced at Annexure-C;

¶46

2. Issue a writ in the nature certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 27.8.1996 u/s 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act produced at Annexure-D;

¶47

3. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 6 re-deliver the possession of remaining vacant plots formed in Sy. No. 214/1, 214/2 of Mudhol Town in so for petitioners are concerned. On such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case;

¶48

4. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in circumstances of the case.

¶49

¶50

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶51

¶52

WP No. 101358 of 2016

¶53

The material on record discloses that the petitioners have assailed the impugned acquisition proceedings arising out of Notification dated 22.04.1996 and 27.08.1996 issued under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. A perusal of the petition will indicate that no valid or sufficient cause/ reason has been made out as regards the delay in challenging the acquisition after lapse of 20 years and consequently on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay and latches, I am of the view that the prayer Nos.1 and 2 sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.

¶54

Insofar as the prayer no.3 regarding direction to the respondents No.1 to 6 to redeliver possession of the remaining vacant plots formed in the acquired land is concerned, in view of the undisputed fact that the said portion along with other portion have not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired coupled with the fact that the representations at Annexures P1 to P3 submitted by the petitioners have not been considered and no orders have been passed/ no decision has been taken on the same so far, I deem it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition directing the concerned respondents to address the grievances of the petitioners and consider and pass appropriate orders on the

¶55

¶56

WP No. 101358 of 2016

¶57

aforesaid representations bearing in mind the documents produced by the petitioners in the present writ petition in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

¶58

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

¶59

SD JUDGE

¶60

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

Gangappa Sidramappa Teli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangappa Sidramappa Teli v. the State of Karnataka

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

Shri. Suresh S/O. Sheshangouda, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Irappa S/O Rayappa Kadampur Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri.Siddappa Vs the Union of India.

Revansiddayya S/O Sharnayya Shivappayyanamath Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O Fakirappa Arer Vs the Superintendent of Police, Haveri

Siddappa S/O Basappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka