Disposed

Puttalingaiah v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/1527/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged acquisition of land without compensation under Article 226. Counsel resigned; respondents agreed to investigate grievance. Court dismissed petition, directed respondents to decide within eight weeks, and imposed daily penalty for delay.

What did the court decide?

Respondents held eight weeks to decide on compensation based on earlier representation; daily penalty of Rs. 2,000 if delayed.

Puttalingaiah Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1527 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1527 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PUTTALINGAIAH, S/O LATE CHANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O B. HATNA VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 405.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DHANANJAYA V.S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., NO.35, H.L.B.C, SUB-DIVISION-DUDDA, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 405.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAVERI NEERAVI NIGAMA LTD., NO.08, SUB-DIVISON, H.L.B.C. BASARALU, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 416.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, MANDYA DISTRCIT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 1527 of 2023

¶19

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571401.

¶20

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGLAORE CITY - 560 009.

¶21

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GORURU, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶22

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., VONTIKOPPALU, MYSURU CITY - 570 002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R5, R6 & R7; SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R3 & R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR ANY DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO SUBMIT THE PROPOSALS FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL KINDS OF COMPENSATIONS TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THEIR LANDS, CROPS, HORTICULTURAL TREES AND OTHER DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LANDS IN WHICH WITHOUT NOTIFICATIONS THE LANDS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED AND POSSESSION WAS TAKEN AS PER THE ANNEXURE-B TO B2 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - WP No. 1527 of 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The short grievance of the Petitioner is as to alleged non-payment of compensation amount for the land acquired. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that his clien has made a Representation dated 26.12.2017 (Annexure-B series) and sent the Registered Post acknowledgment, as well; the original acknowledgment shows the evidence for service of his representations. He adds that right to property having been constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, the State taking the land without payment of compensation virtually amounts to robbery and therefore, a direction be issued to pay the compensation.

¶30

Learned Counsel Sri. K.S. Bheemaiah on request accepts notice for Kaveri Neeravari Nigama Limited and its officials. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Both they oppose the petition contending that the amount payable by way of compensation or otherwise, can be claimed by filing a

¶31

¶32

WP No. 1527 of 2023

¶33

regular suit and petition of this kind cannot be entertained. Having so contended, they now agree to instruct their clients to look into grievance of the Petitioner as aired in the subject representation in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. This is appreciable.

¶34

In view of the above, petition is disposed off and time for taking decision on the subject representation is eight weeks form the day a copy of the judgment is produced. If delay is brooked, the concerned respondent shall personally pay to the petitioner Rs.2,000/- per day.

¶35

It is open to the answering Respondents to solicit any information or documents from the side of Petitioner subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.

¶36

Now, no costs.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Puttalingaiah v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttalingaiah v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Sri L Muniyappa Vs Government of Karnataka

M/S Reha Urban Infra Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

M/S Vijaya Commercial Credit Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

Mr. M L Sadashivayya Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Maheshwari Sampath Vs the State of Karnataka

K B Nagaraju Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer