Disposed

Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2023WP/12226/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Court disposed of the matter by reserving liberty to the petitioner to furnish complete details and vouching documents for the sought representation regarding property acquisition compensation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the Petitioner to furnish complete particulars and vouching documents to enable consideration of his representation within three months.

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 12226 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 12226 OF 2021 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJU, S/O LATE VARADANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.19/125, OPP. TO RAMA MANDIR, SANTHEMARAHALLI ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN-571 313.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SUMATHI S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.

¶15

CHAMARAJANAGAR TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,

¶16

CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 313,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 12226 of 2021

¶19

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY HW 209, NO.37,SRI BAIRAVESHWARA COMPLEX, APPAJI NURSING HOME, MALAVALLI, MANDYA.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER FOR ACQUISITION OF HIS PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to non-

¶28

consideration of his Representation dated 22.10.2020, a

¶29

copy where of avails at Annexure-C, wherein he has sought for some compensation in respect of a piece of

¶30

¶31

WP No. 12226 of 2021

¶32

house property i.e., allegedly occupied by Respondent No.5.

¶33

Learned Panel Counsel appearing for

¶34

Respondent No.5, notice to others being not required, opposes the petition contending that the full particulars are lacking in the Representation and therefore, relief of the kind cannot be granted. Having so contended, now he fairly submits that if the Petitioner furnishes the information as is required, there would be no difficulty for considering the subject Representation in accordance with law and in a time bound way; this is appreciable.

¶35

In view of the above, liberty being reserved to the Petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed off.

¶36

If the Representation with all vouching documents are furnished, its consideration at the hands of Respondent No.5 would takes place within an outer limit of three months.

¶37

¶38

WP No. 12226 of 2021

¶39

The answering Respondents may solicit any information or documents from the Petitioner side subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay

¶40

shall not be brooked.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Nagaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraju 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma Vs the State Government

Sri Jayaprakasha a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri v Divakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Summaiya Khanum Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Hameeda Begum Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri K S Ramesh Vs the President / Secretary