Disposed

Y K Jayaram v. Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2023WP/1088/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an endorsement rejecting his claim for enhanced land acquisition compensation due to the lapse of the statutory period. The court agreed with the Respondents that the Writ Court lacks power to extend statutory limitation and disposed of the petition while keeping the matter open for redressal through the Reference Court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed off without granting any relief to the Petitioner.

Y K Jayaram Vs Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1088 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1088 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Y K JAYARAM, S/O KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT YELIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-560 402.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VASUDEVA IYENGAR K T.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-560 402.

¶16

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO- DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RECONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR AWARDING ENHANCED COMPENSATION

¶19

¶20

WP No. 1088 of 2022

¶21

AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO LAND IN SY.NOS.34, AT YELIYOORU VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA IN AN EXTENT OF 0.7 AND 1/2 GUNTAS OF LAND OUT OF 1 ACRE 06 GUNTAS OF LAND OF THE SAID VILLAGE AND REIMBURSE THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER .

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner who claims to have lost the land in acquisition is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the Endorsement dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure-D) issued by the 2^nd Respondent – SLAO. The same reads as under:

¶25

“ »A§gÀºÀ

¶26

²æÃ ªÉÊ.PÉ.dAiÀÄgÁªÀÄÄ ©£ï PÁ¼ÀªÀÄä, AiÀÄ°AiÀÄÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ, PÉÆvÀÛwÛ ºÉÆÃ§½, ªÀÄAqÀå vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ.

¶27

¤ÃªÀÅ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¢.19/04/2021gÀAzÀÄ ªÀQÃ®gÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ ªÀPÁ®vÀÄÛ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À PÁAiÉÄÝ 18(1)gÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÉ.

¶28

¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAqÀå vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, PÉÆvÀÛwÛ ºÉÆÃ§½, AiÀÄ°AiÀÄÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.34 gÀ°è 0-18 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 0-16 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ gÉÊ¯Éé ¨ÁæqïUÉÃeï ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢ü ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä

¶29

¶30

WP No. 1088 of 2022

¶31

PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj. ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 18(1)gÀ Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ ¤ªÀÄä Cfð «¯ÉÃ EqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶32

«±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁj, ªÀÄAqÀå f¯Éè, ªÀÄAqÀå.”

¶33

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that

¶34

his client being the land loser, is entitled to have augmentation of the compensation paid and therefore, his application ought to have entertained and the authorities should have referred the matter to the Reference Court under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; this having not been done, he says, his client is justified in invoking writ jurisdiction.

¶35

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶36

Respondents submits that the provisions of Section 18 prescribe a period of 90 days for seeking a reference of the amount and once the said period lapses, the application of the kind cannot be entertained at all. He further submits that the Writ Court has no power to

¶37

¶38

WP No. 1088 of 2022

¶39

elongate the limitation prescribed by the statute and therefore, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court broadly agrees with the submission made by the learned AGA and therefore, declines indulgence in the matter.

¶41

However, it is open to the Petitioner to approach the Reference Court in accordance with law more particularly under the provisions of Section 18(1) of the 1894 Act keeping in view all aspects of the matter. All contentions are kept open.

¶42

Ordered accordingly and Writ Petition is disposed off,

¶43

costs having been made easy.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Y K Jayaram v. Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y K Jayaram v. Chief Secretary

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

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Siddagangamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Moola Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Satish Vs State of Karnataka

Iqbal Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Dharmashekaraiah Vs the Commissioner