Dismissed

Ajit Shamrao Veergouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023WP/106847/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging a 1988 land acquisition award was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. The Court held that the inordinate delay of 28 years, combined with the petitioner having received compensation, barred him from questioning the acquisition or seeking restitution of the land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the pending application was disposed of.

Ajit Shamrao Veergouda Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 106847 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AJIT SHAMRAO VEERGOUDA AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. PLOT NO. 19/20, SWAMINATH COLONY, R.C. NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.PRASADKUMAR R.GUNAKI & SRI.I.A.MULLA, ADVS.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶14

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI -590016.

¶16

3. THE COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HUDCO COLONY, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶17

4. THE TAHSILDAR, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.

¶18

¶19

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1, R2, R4 & R5, SRI.M.A.HULIYAL, ADV. FOR R3)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLEGED ACQUISITION AND AWARD ANNEXURE-P MADE BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OF RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED: 21/07/1988 IN RESPECT OF SUBJECT LAND I.E. R.S. NO. 705/2+705/B/2/2 AND CONSEQUENT MUTATION ENTRY BY RESPONDENT NO. 4. DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 HAS NOT ACQUIRED THE SUBJECT LAND, THAT THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT LAND, THAT THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT LAND I.E. 2000 SQ.MTRS. IN R.S. NO. 705/2+705/B/2/2 SITUATE AT ANGOL, BELAGAVI; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 3 SO CALLED ALLOTTES FROM THE RECORD OF RIGHT AND RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORD OF RIGHT OF SUBJECT LAND MEASURING 2000 SQ.MTRS. IN R.S. NO. 705/2+705/2/2 OF ANGOL, BELAGAVI.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the award dated 21.07.1988 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶27

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶28

The petitioner claims to be the owner of vacant land bearing Sy.No.705/2 measuring 38 guntas and Sy.No.705/B/2/2 totally measuring 2 acres. The subject matter of the captioned petition is an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.705/2 and Sy.No.705/B/2/2 totally measuring 2000 square meters. The petitioner has knocked the doors of the writ Court questioning the acquisition of 1988 by specifically contending that this land was never acquired by the respondent No.3 and no compensation is paid till this date. The petitioner claims that having lost 2 acres of land under Urban Land Ceiling proceedings (ULC proceedings), he has retained an area

¶29

¶30

measuring 2000 square meters and is in actual possession of the said land in question.

¶31

This petition is strongly resisted by the

¶32

respondent No.3-BUDA. Statement of objections is filed and the allegation of the petitioner that compensation is not paid is countered by placing on record the documents indicating that compensation is paid to the petitioner through cheque bearing No.425650 dated 02.08.1988 for Rs.43,791.23/-.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

¶34

It is borne out from the records that the petitioner is challenging the acquisition proceedings after lapse of 28 years. At the outset, I must state that the writ petition must fail on the ground of inordinate delay since the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court 28 years after award is passed by the authority.

¶35

¶36

It is trite law that delay and laches is one of the most important factors which this Court has to bear in mind while exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts. This Court also needs to be cautious in entertaining the present petition filed almost three decades having received compensation in 1988. The exercise of power by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary.

¶37

The present does not fail only on the ground of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing this writ petition, but the same must fail on the ground that petitioner has lost locus to question the acquisition proceedings after receiving the compensation award which is evident from Annexure-R18.

¶38

¶39

In the instant case, the petitioner’s land is utilized for implementing a residential scheme by respondent No.3. Post acquisition, in all probability, the BUDA might have incurred huge expenditure in developing the property. There is every possibility of third party rights created in the interregnum. In this scenario, delay of 28 years from the date of payment of compensation has to be treated as more than a sufficient reason for denying any relief to the petitioner herein.

¶40

The allegations made at para 6 of the writ petition is effectively countered by the authorities by filing statement of objections. Therefore, the material on record not only demonstrates that petitioner has not come with clean hands but also clearly reveals that petitioner has filed the captioned petition with malafide intent by suppressing the fact of payment of compensation by respondent No.3.

¶41

¶42

If the petitioners have accepted the

¶43

compensation paid by the respondent No.3, without reserving any right whatsoever, he cannot be permitted to again re-agitate in 2016.

¶44

It is equally trite law that if land owner having lost the land on account of acquisition has received compensation, he is not entitled to seek restitution of the land. The land on passing of an award and payment of compensation automatically vests with the State and if the land acquired is intended to be utilized for developmental scheme, there is no question of restoring the acquired land in favour of the land owner. Neither the State nor the respondent No.3 can be compelled to re-convey the acquired land to the original owner. Once the land is vested in the State, it cannot be divested. The petitioner cannot assail and question the acquisition proceedings after inordinate delay.

¶45

¶46

Writ petition is devoid of merits and

¶47

accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶48

The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Ajit Shamrao Veergouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Shamrao Veergouda 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

Smt. Vasanti Siddappa Pujer, Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri Anand S/O Mahadevappa Kanashetti Vs Smt. Vinutha W/O Anand Kanashetti

Shankar S/O. Shivappa Belgavi Vs the Commissioner

Sri Sathish Kumar M Vs the Police Inspector

Sri. Om Prakash Vs Sri. Basavaraj Swamy

Mahesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner