Partly allowed

Siddappa S/O Basappa Teli v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2023WP/101454/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed prayers to quash acquisition notifications due to inordinate 20-year delay but directed respondent authorities to consider pending representations regarding unutilized land within three months.

What did the court decide?

Orders quashing acquisition notifications were dismissed; direction issued to respondents to consider pending representations regarding unutilized land and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Siddappa S/O Basappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 101454 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. 101454/2016 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SIDDAPPA S/O BASAPPA TELI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULUTE, R/O: MUDHOL, TALUK: MUDHOL, DISTRICT: BAGALKOT.

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

CHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANI Digitally signed byCHANDRASHEKARLAXMANKATTIMANIDate: 2023.01.1411:18:14 +0530

¶16

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

¶17

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶18

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, REHABILITATION,SUB-DIVISION NIO.2, ATHANI, CAMPT AT MUDHOL.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

WP No. 101454 of 2016

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 RE-DELIVER THE POSSESSION OF REMAINING VACANT PLOTS FORMED IN SY.NO.214/3 OF MUDHOL TOWN & ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

2. And consequently issue a writ in the nature certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 22.4.1996 U/s 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act produced at Annexure-B as pertains to the unutilized land insofar as petitioner is concerned.

¶28

3. 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-C as pertains to unutilized land in so far as petitioner is concerned;

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

¶32

WP No. 101454 of 2016

¶33

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶34

HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶35

The material on record discloses that the petitioner has 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.2 and 3 sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶36

Insofar as the prayer no.1 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 representation at Annexure-N submitted by the petitioner has not been considered and no orders have been passed/ no decision has been taken on the same so far,

¶37

¶38

WP No. 101454 of 2016

¶39

I deem it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition directing the concerned respondents to address the grievances of the petitioner and consider and pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid representations bearing in mind the documents produced by the petitioner 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.

¶40

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

¶41

SD JUDGE

¶42

BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Siddappa S/O Basappa Teli v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddappa S/O Basappa 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

Gangappa Sidramappa Teli Vs the State of Karnataka