Allowed

Mr Venkataramanegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2023WP/11713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Karnataka quashed an endorsement rejecting a claim for alternative land. The court directed the respondents to allot alternative land to the petitioner whose land was submerged due to raising a tank height, issuing a mandamus for compliance within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 28.01.2019 quashed; writ of mandamus issued to respondents to allot alternative land within twelve weeks.

Mr Venkataramanegowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.11713 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. VENKATARAMANEGOWDA S/O LATE KRISHNEGOWDA ALIAS CHIKKAVENKATEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NAGAMANGALA ROAD, NEAR MEENAKSHI BHAVAN PANDAVAPURA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 434.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶17

THE THASILDAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK PANDAVAPURA

¶18

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER K.R.S MODERNIZED AND MIDDLE IRRIGATION PROJECT CIRCLE, MANDYA - 571 434.

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM K.R.S DIVISION, KRISHNARAJASAGAR, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶21

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.3 V.C SUB DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA

¶22

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. C.N.MAHADESHVARAN, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ENDORSEMENT DATED 28.01.2019, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, THASILDAR, MADE IN REF.NO.LND/CR220/2018-19, COPY SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing

¶29

Endorsement dated 28.01.2019, (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.4, rejecting the claim made by the

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶31

petitioner interalia sought for direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider the report of Revenue Inspector produced at Annexure-K, for grant of alternative land or to pay the adequate compensation for the extent of land which was being sub-merged with Heerode tank at, Pandavapura Town.

¶32

Relevant facts for the adjudication of the case are that, petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy No.2/1, and land bearing Sy No.80 measuring to an extent of 02 acres 12 guntas of Pandavapura Town. It is the case of the petitioner that aforementioned land was sub-merged with Heerode Tank,

¶33

on account of raising height of the Tank by the respondent-authorities and therefore, the land belonging to the petitioner cannot be utilized for any another purpose much less for agriculture cultivation. Therefore, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.3 herein, seeking compensation in respect of the land referred to above and in this regard, the respondent No.3 herein, by

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶35

order letter dated 11.01.2011 (Annexure-B), directed the respondent No.4 to grant alternative land or award compensation, after conducting enquiry and further directed to take the approval from the Department of minor irrigation. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, though petitioner has established that the land belonging to him has been sub-merged for enhancing the height of Heerode Tank, and the land belonging to the petitioner cannot be utilized for any other purpose, however, the respondent No.4 has passed the Endorsement dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-H), and feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶36

I have Heard Sri B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.N.Mahadeshwaran, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Government.

¶37

Sri B.S.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for

¶38

the petitioner refers to the finding recorded by the respondent No.3 herein as per Annexure-B and the

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶40

mahazar conducted by the Revenue Inspector as per direction of the respondents 3 and 4 herein and argued that, though the land belonging to the petitioner has been sub-merged on account of raise in tank bund and sketch has been prepared for allotting alternative land to the petitioner, respondent No.4 herein has passed Endorsement dated 28.01.2019, which is contrary to the revenue records and therefore, he sought for interference of this court.

¶41

Per contra, Sri C.N.Mahadeshvaran, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State sought to justify the impugned Endorsement and argued that, as the land belonging to the petitioner has not been acquired by the competent authority and therefore, there is no necessity for allotment of alternative land to the petitioner and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶42

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on careful

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶45

examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the subject land bearing Sy Nos.2/1 and 80 measuring to an extent of 1 acres, 6 guntas, each, of Pandavapura Town, is an ancestral property of petitioner and revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner as per Annexure-A, A1 and A2. There is no dispute with regard to title of the property in question. Perusal of the letter dated 11.01.2011, by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.4 indicate that, the height of the Heerode Tank has been raised and on account of the same, the land belonging to the petitioner has become unutilized for agricultural purpose and same is sub-merged and in this regard, respondent No.3 has directed respondent No.4 to allot alternative land or award compensation in accordance with law by taking the approval from the Department of Minor Irrigation. The report of the Revenue Inspector as per Annexure-C and C1, would indicate that, the alternative land has been identified and sketch has been prepared to grant the alternative land in lieu of the aforementioned lands belonging to the petitioner. Survey

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶47

Sketch has been prepared marking declaration of grant of land to the petitioner. I have also noticed that the petitioner has approached this court on two occasions in W.P.No.12116/2012 decided on 24.04.2018 (Annexure-G) and W.P.No.35519 of 2018 decided on 20.02.2020 (Annexure-J) and same would demonstrate that, the petitioner was agitating the matter before this court and respondent No.4. After taking into consideration the factual aspects on record and also considering the report made by the Cauvery Niravari Nigam, referred at as per Annexure-E, as the respondent-authorities have raised the Herode tank and the land belonging to the petitioner has become submerge and unutilized, respondent No.3 has addressed letter to the respondent No.4 for taking necessary steps to grant alternative land to the petitioner, however, respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1963 and the respondent No.3 herein while exercising jurisdiction under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1963, as per Annexure-F, dismissed the appeal preferred

¶48

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶49

by the respondent No.4 herein, by passing considered order and therefore the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 produced at Annexure-H which is per se contrary to the above order referred to passed by respondent No.3 and the report of the Department of Minor Irrigation. In that view of the matter, the impugned Endorsement dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-H) is liable to be set aside. I have also noticed that, the respondent No.4 herein has whimsically passed the order without considering the material on record and based on the report of the Assistant Execute Engineer, stating that, the land belonging to the petitioner has not been acquired. It is the case of the petitioner that, the land belonging to the petitioner has not been acquired but in view of raising Heerode water tank, the land belonging to the petitioner has become unutilized for agricultural purpose and therefore, petitioner has sought for granting of alternative land. The Said aspect has not been considered by the respondent No.4 while passing impugned Endorsement. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:37821 WP No. 11713 of 2023

¶52

respondent No.4 is without jurisdiction and therefore, order dated 28.01.2019 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.4 is quashed and the writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents 2 to 4, to allot alternative land in terms of the observations made by the respondent No.3 herein at Annexures-B and F, as well as the sketch and spot inspection made by the revenue authorities as per Annexures-C5 and C6 and Annexure-K dated 13.02.2022 within an outer limit of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶53

SD/JUDGE

¶54

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Mr Venkataramanegowda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Venkataramanegowda 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

Peerpasha Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Gurunath Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Jagadevi and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

K.N. Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.v.Shivaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G L Jeevan Vs the Deputy Commissioner