Dismissed

Smt. Vimala Anantharamaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2023WP/1150/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1988, arguing for voiding of acquisition under the 2013 Act due to delayed possession. The court dismissed the petition as a belated challenge since compensation was already paid and accepted decades ago, rendering the challenge unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed; costs were awarded to the Respondents.

Smt. Vimala Anantharamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1150 OF 2023(LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.VIMALA ANANTHARAMAIAH, W/O SRI.H.G.ANANTHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.59, SRINIVASA KRUPA, 6^TH MAIN RAOD, PARAMAHAMSA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU – 570 020.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANDEEP S PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶13

5^TH FLOOR, GATE NO.3, M S BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, 3^RD FLOOR, ROOM NO.405,

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING, B M ROAD, BENGALURU – 562 159.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 562 110.

¶17

¶18

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 562 110.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MANDYA DIVISION, B M ROAD, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶20

THE TAHSILDAR, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, CHANNAPATNA – 562 160.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 04.08.1998 GAZETTED ON 31.01.1991 BEARING NO.L.A.Q.SR.21/1988-89 PASSED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This Writ Petition by the erstwhile owner of the land in

¶27

question seeks to lay a challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated vide Preliminary Notification dated 4.8.1988 gazetted on 31.1.1991 followed by the Final Notification dated 14.1.1992 and culminating into the award

¶28

dated 30.9.1993. Learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶29

¶30

vehemently argues that the possession having not been taken over till date, the acquisition should be set at naught under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He hastens to add that the compensation amount received by his client should be remitted back immediately.

¶31

Learned AGA on request having accepted notice for the official Respondents, opposes the Petition contending that the challenge has been highly belated; the possession of the land having been taken over long back, even the compensation has admittedly been paid to the land owner/khatedar as is evidenced by the acknowledgement of receipt dated 11.04.1998 at Annexure-M to the Petition. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶32

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶34

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned AGA appearing for the Respondents. Firstly, the challenge is highly belated and decades have rolled since the acquisition. No plausible explanation has been offered for the long delay brooked in approaching the Writ Court. Merely because the entries in the Revenue Records still continue in the name of the land owner, is of no avail when admittedly, the compensation has been received by the land owner/khatedar and a copy of the acknowledgement has been produced by the Petitioner herself. The Apex Court in GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI vs. MOHD. ZUBAIR (2023) 1 SCC 174 has observed that once compensation has been accepted unreservedly, the same amounts to acquiescing in the acquisition and therefore, the challenge that too at a belated stage, is unsustainable.

¶35

¶36

The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that once the possession is not taken within a period of five years from the date the 2013 Act came into force, his client is entitled to have the acquisition voided, is contrary to INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. MANOHARLAL , (2020) 8 SCC 129 and therefore, the benefit contemplated u/s 24(2) thereof, cannot be availed by the Petitioner.

¶37

In view of the above, Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Smt. Vimala Anantharamaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vimala Anantharamaiah 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

Mrs. Elizabeth Simon George Vs the State of Karnataka

Gajanana Govinda Pai Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. B.R. Sujatha Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Mr. S. K. John Vs M/S. Mysore Tools Limited in Liquidation

A Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Ekanath a Irkal Vs the Official Liquidator of