Disposed

Sri.a S Palaksha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2023WP/14586/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing notification of additional land and valuation of cut coconut trees in a land acquisition proceeding. The Court held no excess land was utilized but directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to fix compensation for 115 cut coconut trees within three months, imposing a daily penalty for delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to fix and pay compensation for 115 coconut trees within three months under a penalty of Rs. 1,000 per day for delay.

Sri.a S Palaksha Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 14586 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 14586 OF 2016 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. A. S. PALAKSHA, S/O LATE SRIKANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,.

¶10

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O AKKIANNA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT YEARS,

¶11

SRI. A. G. MAHADEV, S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O KAPANI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. NANJUNDEGOWA, S/O BASAVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O KENGAIAH, AGED ABOUT YEARS,

¶16

SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 14586 of 2016

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF ANCHECHITTANNAHALLLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. SURENDRA KUMAR N., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶24

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶25

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEMAVATHI LEFT BANK CANAL, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITHA YEDIYUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 142.

¶26

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.11, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA, YEDIYUR SUB DIVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 142.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAMACHANDRAN K., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R3)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO NOTIFY THE ADDITIONAL LANDS PROPOSED TO BE ACQUIRED IN VARIOUS SURVEY NUMBERS ANCHECHITTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK AND ALSO DIRECT THEM TO FIX THE VALUATION OF COCONUT TREES WHICH WERE ALREADY CUT AND REMOVED AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

WP No. 14586 of 2016

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petitioners claiming to be the owners of the land in acquisition, are knocking at the doors of this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to notify the additional lands for being acquired in various survey numbers and further to fix & pay the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that excess lands than were notified, are utilized and therefore, either compensation should be paid or the land should be directed to be restored to them in accordance with law consistent with the constitutional guarantee to the Property Right as enacted in Article 300A.

¶35

After service of notice, the Respondents having

¶36

entered appearance through the learned AGA, had opposed the Petition and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.07.2022 had said as under:

¶37

¶38

WP No. 14586 of 2016

¶39

1. "Learned AGA seeks for and is granted two weeks time to verify whether the coconut trees which have been subsequently cut were from the land which has been acquired or in the additional land where petitioner seeks for acquisition. If coconut trees were in the land acquired whether compensation has been awarded for those trees."

¶40

Learned AGA draws attention of the Court to

¶41

paragraph 4 of the Affidavit dated 23.01.2023 sworn to by

¶42

the SLAO - Mr. Hotel Shivappa which reads as under:

¶43

" I state that from the aforementioned facts

¶44

and the documents it is clear that no additional/extra land is utilized by the authority except the land which were notified in the notification. However, in so far as 115 coconut trees, the authority are ready to fix and pay the compensation. Hence, this affidavit."

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶46

and having perused the petition papers including the affidavit now filed, this Court is of a considered opinion that no additional land has been taken by the Respondents apart from what were notified for acquisition. This having been said, a direction needs to be issued to the 2^nd respondent - SLAO to fix the compensation for the 115 Coconut Trees standing on the land in question since

¶47

¶48

WP No. 14586 of 2016

¶49

admittedly no compensation is paid in respect of that. This exercise has to be done within a period of three months and it would include the handing of cheque for the compensation amount and other benefits to the concerned land owners.

¶50

If delay is brooked, the SLAO shall personally pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day to the land owners.

¶51

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off.

¶52

Now, no costs.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sri.a S Palaksha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a S Palaksha v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Doddamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jai Kapadia Vs the Official Liquidator of

Sri Ajjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Jayaramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

The Karnataka State Education Vs Smt. C H Savithramma