Dismissed

M Katappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2023WP/1140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging non-payment of industrial land compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka agreed with respondents that title disputes must be adjudicated by the proper Civil Court. The petition was dismissed, with the Special Land Acquisition Officer directed to refer the matter to a competent Court for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer the dispute to the competent Court within eight weeks.

M Katappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1140 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M KATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIVENKATTAPPA, R/AT DOOR NO.296 AND 298, BAGALUR COLONY, MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU- 562 149. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. UDAY K S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶14

REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT NO. 49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 001. REPTD. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.39, 4^TH FLOOR, SHATIGRUHA,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 1140 of 2023

¶19

SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. C RAMAKRISHNA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BENGALURU/SLAO-2/2481/2022.23,DATED 16.08.2022 AT ANNEXURE-J,ISSUED BY THE R3 AND DIRECTING THE R2 AND 3 TO ALLOT THE DEVELOPED LAND IN LIEU OF ACCUSATION OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PRAYED FOR IN REPRESENTATION DATED 10.11.2021 AT ANNEXURE-G.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to non-

¶26

payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired under the provisions of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrieal Areas Development Act, 1966. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner banks upon the Endorsement given by the concerned Tahsildar to the effect that the grant was genuine and therefore, consistent compensation has to be paid to his clients, in view of right to Property being constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A.

¶27

¶28

WP No. 1140 of 2023

¶29

Learned AGA appearing for the 1^st Respondent

¶30

State and the learned Sr. panel Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, KIADB and its SLAO, oppose the Petition contending that under the Scheme envisaged in the 1966 Act, what is to be acted upon is the names of persons figuring in the Property Records at the time acquisition proceedings were initiated and therefore, if some other person is claiming compensation, he has to go before the Court under Sections 30 & 31 of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for adjudication and redressal of grievance.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents and therefore, dispose of the Writ Petition reserving liberty to the Petitioner to avail the said remedy before the concerned Court.

¶32

The 3^rd Respondent is directed to refer the dispute to the Court within eight weeks and for facilitating such a

¶33

¶34

WP No. 1140 of 2023

¶35

reference, it is open for him to seek any information or

¶36

documents from the side of the Petitioner as well.

¶37

All contentions are kept open.

¶38

No costs.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Bsv

M Katappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Katappa 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

Sri a Rajanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri R Chenraj Jain Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Anjanamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K. Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Tulasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Hiralal Vs the Commissioner