Partly allowed

Sri R Sampangiramu v. M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023WP/10911/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging the entry of the Central Government's name in property records and the compensation paid for subsoil user rights. It directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to delete the Government's name from records.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent to delete the Central Government's name from property records, retaining the Petitioner's name, within 60 days.

Sri R Sampangiramu Vs M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd. — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 10911 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10911 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. R SAMPANGIRAMU, S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.396/1, HEGGADE NAGARA, KOTHNUR MAIN ROAD, K.NARAYANA PURA, S.R.K. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 077. SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.P M NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

M/S PETRONET MHB LTD NO.322, IST FLOOR, DARUS SALAM BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. REPRESENTED BY HIS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

SPCIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & COMPETENT AUTHORITY MANGALORE-BANGALORE PIPELINE PROJECT M/S PETRONET MHB LTD, NO.332, IST FLOOR, DARUS SALAM BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 52.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. B K SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 10911 of 2019

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSMENT DATED 25.9.2018 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to the name of Government of India being entered in the property records in respect of his lands and also the alleged frugality of the compensation paid for using the subsoil for laying a pipeline.

¶23

After service of notice, the 1^st Respondent is represented by the Panel Counsel; 2^nd Respondent Special Deputy Commissioner, Competent Authority is represented by the Senior Panel Counsel. Both they oppose the Writ Petition contending that land of the Petitioner is not taken out at all; subsoil has been used for laying the pipeline under the provisions of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. The 1^st Respondent has filed the Statement of Objections

¶24

¶25

WP No. 10911 of 2019

¶26

contending that 10% of guideline value of the subject property has been paid to the Petitioner by way of compensation for using the subsoil of his land u/s 10(4) of this Act. If Petitioner has grievance as to the inadequacy of the compensation, it is open to him to approach the District Judge under Rule 10(5) of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶28

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the ownership of the subject land would still continue with the Petitioner himself as has been submitted by the learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents rightly. If that be so, the 2^nd Respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner ought to have ensured that name of Central Government does not figure in the property records in respect of the subject land.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 10911 of 2019

¶31

The second grievance, i.e., inadequacy of

¶32

compensation, Petitioner has got an alternate & efficacious remedy as provided under Rule 10(5) of the 1963 Rules and in this connection, he can make a petition to the jurisdictional District Judge within a period prescribed by law. Learned counsel for the 2^nd Respondent points out that the period prescribed for filing petition is 90 days from the date the compensation has been paid to him and years having now rolled, nothing can be made out. This court shares the same view. It is stated by the sages of law that law and this court does not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy since delay defeats equity.

¶33

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is partly allowed; 2^nd Respondent is directed to ensure that name of the Petitioner alone would continue in the property records after deleting that of the Central Government. This has to be accomplished immediately and compliance report should be filed to the Registrar General of this Court within an outer limit of 60 days failing which

¶34

¶35

WP No. 10911 of 2019

¶36

the incumbent of office of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner

¶37

shall be personally liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per day to the Petitioner for the first 30 days and Rs.3,000/- thereafter.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

CBC

Sri R Sampangiramu v. M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R Sampangiramu v. M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd.

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

Sri Channakeshava C K Vs the Bangalre Development Authority

Smt Leelavathi S Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Nagaraju Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Ravish S Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt N Manjula Vs the Commissioner

Sri M v Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka