Disposed

Somashekhar v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2023WP/11622/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged acquisition notifications and award, seeking quashing and consideration for allotment of compensatory sites. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider representations within three months, keeping all legal contentions open to prevent delay.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed off; time for consideration of the subject representation is three months. All contentions kept open. No costs.

Somashekhar Vs the Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11622 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 11622 OF 2020 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SOMASHEKHAR S/O CHIKKAKARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,

¶10

SMT. LAKKAMMA, W/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶11

VEERAKAMAYYA, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶12

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

¶13

OBALAYYA

¶14

S/O RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶15

TULASAMMA

¶16

W/O JAYARAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶17

ANWAR SHARIF

¶18

S/O ABDUL VAHABH SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CLAIMED)

¶19

¶20

WP No. 11622 of 2020

¶21

SAKAMMA W/O SOMASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶22

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 7 ARE ALL R/O LINGANAHALLI VILLAGE, TALUK AND DISTRICT: TUMKUR-572 128.

¶23

T N MANJUNATH, S/O T C LINGAPPA,. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O THIMMARAJANAHALLI, KORA HOBALI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: TUMKUR-572 127.

¶24

RAMAKKA, W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O LINGANAHALLI, TALUK AND DISTRICT:TUMKUR-572 128. (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP IS NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. VARUN J PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶28

KIADB BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.14/1, ARAVIND BHAVAN, IST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶29

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VIKAS SOUDHA, NIZM, KIADB, ZONAL OFFICE, MARUTHI TOWERS, IST FLOOR, BESIDE SIT COLLEGE, B H ROAD, TUMKUR-572 103. …RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;

¶31

SRI. P V CHANDRASHEAKR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶32

¶33

WP No. 11622 of 2020

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN GAZETTED DATED 31.07.2006 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND FINAL NOTIFICATION U/S 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT IN THE GAZETTE DATED 22.07.2017 ISSUED BY R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND GENERAL AWARD DATED 30.11.2013 PASSED BY VIDE ANNEXURE-N IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER NO.1 MEASURING 2 ACRES OF SY.NO.50 OF NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, PETITIONER NO.2 MEASURING 2 ACRES OF SY.NO.50 OF NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, PETITIONER NO.3 MEASURING 1 ACRE 12 GUNTAS OF SY.NO.55, PETITIONER NO.4 MEASURING 1 ACRE SY.NO.48, PETITIONER NO.5 OF SY.NO.47 MEASURING 1 ACRE, PETITIONER NO.6 OF SY.NO.39 MEASURING 1 ACRE 30 GUNTAS, PETITIONER NO.7 MEASURING 1 ACRE 20 GUNTAS OF SY.NO.9/4, PETITONER NO.9 MEASURING 33 GUNTAS SY.NO.9/1 AND PETITIONER NO.9 MEASURING 1 ACRE 10 GUNTAS OF SY.NO.40 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The essential grievance of the Petitioners,

¶38

notwithstanding text of prayer in the petition is against

¶39

non-consideration of their representations for allotment of compensatory sites. Learned counsel for the Petitioners now submits that his clients will be satisfied if, their subject representation is considered, in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. With this proposal, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the

¶40

¶41

WP No. 11622 of 2020

¶42

respondent-KIADB is also broadly in agreement, however

¶43

with the rider that the Court leaves open all contentions.

¶44

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off; time for consideration of the subject representation is three months. All contentions kept open.

¶45

It is open to the answering Respondent to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioners for due consideration of their Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked.

¶46

No costs.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

cbc

Somashekhar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somashekhar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Somashekar N Vs the State of Karnataka

Lokesh K G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Harish K Vs the Commissioner

Sandeep Shenoy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kadiramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivas B R Vs the State of Karnataka