The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking allotment of developed sites instead of cash compensation for land acquired under 1972 Act. The Court refused indulgence due to a four-decade delay and laches, noting that such stale claims disturb budgetary economics and cannot be entertained.
Writ petition disposed off; costs made easy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 1370 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/AT NO.567, 2ND CROSS, KAMATAGIRI, NAZARABAD,MYSORE - 570 010.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 1370 of 2022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1 - R3, SRI. B.J SOMAYAJI., ADVOCATE FOR R4.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL NOTICE DTD 06.08.2021 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS FOR ALLOTMENT OF DEVELOPED SITES/LAND RATIO INSTEAD OF CASH COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
court to consider their claim for allotment of a "developed site/land ratio instead of cash compensation awarded to the petitioners" as per the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.No.16919/2013 etc.
WP No. 1370 of 2022
(a) The claim of the petitioners is structured on the basis of the acquisition of land that was accomplished about four decades ago under the provisions of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 as admitted in paragraph 10 of the petition. The Preliminary Notification is dated 01.03.1975 and Final Notification is dated 06.08.1975. The award was passed soon thereafter and the award notice dated 27.08.1976 was issued long long ago. Thereafter another notice dated 20.08.1976 came to be issued telling the petitioners about the intended depositing of the compensation amount in
WP No. 1370 of 2022
the court. Thereafter what the land owner did in response to the same, is not forthcoming from the records except that petitioners made some representation only in the recent past followed by a legal notice dated 06.08.2021. Thus a long and inordinate delay coupled with abundant laches attributable to the petitioners galore in the matter. Virtually petitioners are asking the respondents and the Court to travel back in the time line too much and therefore that exercise is not worth undertaking, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life. It was Jeremy Bentham, an English jurist of by gone centuries who said that Law could not come to the aid of sleepy & tardy. Raking up stale claims is not in the best interest of the society.
(b) Acquisition of land is a serious matter and payment of compensation is no less serious. Where State acquires the land for allotment of sites to the lower strata of people, it pays the compensation amount from the treasury and thus it is a matter involving expenditure which in turn involves budgetary allocation. If stale claims
WP No. 1370 of 2022
are raised now that disturbs budgetary economics and therefore such claims cannot be entertained by the writ court in its equitable jurisdiction. Granting indulgence in matters of this kind would lay a very bad precedent that does not augur well for the public interest. A relief if granted on humanitarian ground may become a right to other similarly circumstanced and therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
(c) All the above having been said, this Court
would not come in the way of the authorities processing the request of the petitioners for awarding compensation if already not paid and if the petitioners otherwise vouch their claim by producing necessary evidentiary material.
In the above circumstances and with above observations, writ petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can grant indulgence for a claim arising from land acquisition notices issued over four decades ago.
Whether stale claims disturbing budgetary allocation can be entertained under the equitable jurisdiction of the writ court.
Whether the petitioners are disentitled to the relief sought due to inordinate delay and laches.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T. Srinivas and Others
State of Karnataka
Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District
Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub Division
Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Hunsur
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
