Writ petition filed seeking quashing of acquisition award and directing allotment of alternate land by claim of violation of natural justice dismissed on grounds of laches, delay, and lack of statutory right to alternate site.
Writ petition dismissed with no mandate to allot alternate site.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:11614 WP No. 101677 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.101677 OF 2015 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI SHANKARRAO GOVINDRAO BHANDURGE, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DADDI-591 254, TALUKA: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI NITIN R. BOLABANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M.A. HULYAL, ADVOCATE)
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 01.10.2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E; A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOT PLOT MEASURING 40' x 60' IN SCHEME NO.47 OR SCHEME NO.40 WHERE 18 & 16 PLOTS MEASURING 40' x 60' ARE AVAILABE WITH THE RESPONDENT IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF HIS PLOT NO.69 OUT OF LAND RS NO.2/2U OF BELAGAVI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking following
reliefs.
is no representation on behalf of respondent.
Belagavi. A representation was submitted by the petitioner herein. The respondent/authority having examined the representation submitted by petitioner however has declined to entertain the representation. While rejecting the representation/application, the authority has held that since plots are not available, petitioner’s claim cannot be considered.
allotment of alternate site to compensate the acquisition of plot bearing No.69. The prayer sought in the instant petition cannot be entertained on two counts. The land is acquired way back in 1995-96 and award is passed on 18.12.1996. The captioned writ petition is filed in the year 2015. Therefore, only on the ground of delay and latches, the captioned writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The courts do not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the case of G.C.Gupta Vs.N.K.Pandey reported in (1988) 1 SCC 316 held that inordinate delay is not merely a factor for the court to refuse appropriate relief but also a relevant consideration for not unsettling settled things.
deposited, the petitioner by way of right cannot insist for allotment of alternate site.
providing an alternate site on account of acquisition cannot be extended in all cases of acquisition of land. Therefore, even on merits, I do not find any valid grounds to interfere with the impugned endorsements issued by respondent/authority. Consequently, question of issuing mandamus does not arise in the present case on hand. If petitioner has failed to substantiate legal right and since this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned endorsements issued by respondent/authority as per Annexure-E, no mandamus lies.
Sd/JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a legal right to seek an alternate site in lieu of acquired land after a delay of nearly two decades.
Whether the respondent authority was obligated to allot a 40x60 plot as relief for land acquisition.
Whether the writ petition was barred by delay and lack of legal entitlement to an alternate site.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.C.Gupta Vs.N.K.PandeyApplied¶34
(1988) 1 SCC 316 · Who else cites this
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Dr. Vasanthi VeerasekaranApplied¶38
Civil Appeal No.8626/2009 dated 01.07.2019
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Shankarrao Govindrao Bhandurge
The Commissioner, Belgaum, Urban Development Authority, Belagavi
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
