Dismissed

Smt. Neelabai W/O Late Hanamant Sherakhane v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023WP/102685/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondents filed a writ petition seeking to declare land acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-payment of compensation awarded in 1963. The court observed that compensation had been deposited and, relying on Indore Development Authority precedent, directed the petitioners to claim the amount. Accordingly, dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; directed petitioners to proceed to recover the deposited compensation amount.

Smt. Neelabai W/O Late Hanamant Sherakhane Vs the State… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13553 WP No. 102685 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 102685 OF 2017 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NEELABAI W/O LATE HANAMANT SHERAKHANE AGED 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O SAIDAPUR GALLI, MUDHOL, DIST:BAGALAKOTE.

¶10

SRI. GUNDURAO S/O LATE HANAMANT SHERAKHANE, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O SAIDAPUR GALLI, MUDHOL,

¶11

DIST: BAGALAKOTE.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR P2)

¶14

AND:

¶15

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GLBCC

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13553 WP No. 102685 of 2017

¶20

DIVISION NO - III, BILAGI, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GLBCC DIVISION NO. XI, MAHALINGAPUR-MUDHOL ROAD, MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GLBCC DIVISION JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, JAMKHANDI, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.

¶25

THE CITY SURVEY OFFICER, SURVEY, SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS, MUDHOL, MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. ASHOK KATTEMANI, ADV. FOR R1, R6 TO R8, SRI.S.M.TONNE, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR DIRECTION AND DECLARE THAT IN VIEW OF NO COMPENSATION HAVING BEEN PAID TO THE PETITIONERS OR THEIR PREDECESSOR-IN-TITLE UNDER AND IN PURSUANCE OF THE AWARD DATED:10.02.1963 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BEARING NO.LAQ SR 160 THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AND REFERRED TO IN THE SAID AWARD HAS STOOD LAPSED AND FRUSTRATED AND ETC.

¶29

THIS WP, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13553 WP No. 102685 of 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The case of the petitioners is that land belonging to them has been acquired in the year 1963 and no compensation has been paid to them. For the said reason, the present writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the acquisition as having lapsed. Certain interim orders were passed, based on which contempt petition was also filed and this Court in CCC Nos.100006-07/2020 has found that there has been no contempt on part of the accused therein, who are the respondents herein and in fact the petitioners have abused the judicial process.

¶33

Even otherwise, it is seen from the records that subsequent to the final notification, an award has been passed and the amount has been deposited before the Mudhol Sub Treasury. The said fact is not disputed.

¶34

Taking into consideration the ratio in Indore Development Authority and another vs. Shyam Verma and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 405, it is for the petitioners to do the needful to get the compensation amount

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13553 WP No. 102685 of 2017

¶37

released and the acquisition has to be deemed to have been concluded.

¶38

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is

¶39

hereby dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

RSH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 13

Smt. Neelabai W/O Late Hanamant Sherakhane v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neelabai W/O Late Hanamant Sherakhane 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Habeeb Ahmed Ghodesawar Vs the Managing Director

Kumari. Danawwa D/O Rajshekhar Vs Rajshekhar S/O Siddappa Muradi

Shantavva Kom Chandragouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Kunja Bihari Joshi Vs the Deputy Registrar of

Neelappa S/O Siddappa Hadapad Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Basavaraj Prabhu Yaragudari Vs the State of Karnataka