Allowed

Sri Kothanur M Thammanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Feb 2023WP/1776/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order permitting resumption of his land under the 1978 SC/ST Act. The Karnataka High Court quashed the resumption order citing reasonable time requirements and directed KIADB to release compensation to the petitioner within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issuing quashing order against Deputy Commissioner’s resumption order; direction to KIADB to release compensation to Petitioner within eight weeks with 2% monthly interest on defaul

Sri Kothanur M Thammanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1776 OF 2012 (SCST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KOTHANUR M THAMMANNA , AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, R/AT BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K SHIVASHANKAR.,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, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, PODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶19

SRI A RAJANNA, S/O ANJANAPPA, R/AT VEEREABHADRANAPALYA, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

SRI R DEVENDRA, S/O A RAJANNA, R/AT VEEREABHADRANAPALYA, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶21

SRI R CHANDRANNA, S/O A RAJANNAN, R/AT VEEREABHADRANAPALYA, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶22

SRI R CHETAN KUMAR, S/O A RAJANNA, R/AT VEEREABHADRANAPALYA, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶23

SRI SUSHEELAMMA, D/O LATE SHARADAMMA, C/O DIVYA STORES, 12^TH B MAIN, 6^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010.

¶24

SRI SRINIVASA , S/O LATE SHARADAMMA, NO.1087, 66^TH CROSS, 8^TH B MAIN ROAD, 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010.

¶25

SMT SHARADAMMA @ SHOBHA, D/O A RAJANNA NO.222, 1^ST CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BANGALORE 560 094.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶28

SMT KALYANAKUMARI, W/O SRI SUDHAKAR , KANTEERAVANAGARA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. J N NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8; SRI. G CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R9 & R10; SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R11 & R12)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN NO.SC.ST.(A)129/2010-11 DTD.7.1.2012 VIDE ANNEX-A AND DIRECT THE R4 NOT TO RELEASE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING ST.NO.451 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OFD 2 ACRES SITUATED AT, BAGALUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA, BANGALORE NROTH ADDL. TALUK, BANGALORE.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking quashment of order dated 07.1.2012 (Annexure A) passed by the 2^nd Respondent – Deputy Commissioner,

¶34

whereby the LRs of the original grantee are claiming compensation for the subject land.

¶35

2. BREIF FACTS:

¶36

¶37

WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶38

(a) On 28.06.1964 the subject land was granted in

¶39

favour of the father of the 5^th Respondent herein. Petitioner’s father bought this property on 03.12.1969 by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed dated 03.12.1969; khatha was transferred and taxes are also paid. Subsequently, LRs of the original grantee i.e., the private Respondents instituted Resumption proceedings under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, alleging violation of statutory prohibition on transfer enacted therein. The said proceedings came to be allowed by the Assistant Commissioner on 08.01.2004 directing resumption. Petitioner filed an appeal bearing SC/ST/Appeal No.70/2004-05 wherein matter was remanded vide order dated 08.12.2006 to the Assistant Commissioner for consideration afresh.

¶40

(b) The 3^rd Respondent – Assistant Commissioner

¶41

having dismissed the remand on 12.11.2010, matter was taken in appeal (Appeal No.129/2010-11) by the LRs of

¶42

¶43

WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶44

the 5^th Respondent herein. Subsequently, appeal was

¶45

allowed by the Deputy Commissioner on 07.01.2012 directing resumption. In the meanwhile, the subject property was acquired under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and now the resumption of land is challenged in this Writ Petition so that Petitioners can avail compensation in lieu of the land.

¶46

3. CONTENTION OF PARTIES:

¶47

(a) Learned counsel for the Petitioners placing

¶48

reliance upon VIVEK M. HINDUJA & OTHERS Vs. M. ASHWATHA & OTHERS, 2018(1) KAR L.R. 176 (SC) submits that in light of the law declared by the Apex Court no resumption could have been granted since even when no period for limitation is prescribed under the 1978 Act, the resumption ought to have been sought for within a reasonable period and that having not happened in this case, the impugned order of resumption has to be voided. So contending, he seeks indulgence of the Writ Court.

¶49

¶50

WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶51

(b) Learned advocates appearing for the LRs of the original grantee oppose the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order made by the 2^nd Respondent – Deputy Commissioner in Appeal. They add, the policy of State as enacted in the 1978 Act needs to be given effect, to its fullest extent regard being had to the interest of the oppressed classes and therefore, Petition has to be dismissed so that the LRs of the grantee can take compensation payable for the subject land that is since acquired by the KIADB.

¶52

Having heard the leaned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners. It has been a well settled position of law from the days of Lord Halsbury that when a statute permits/ordains something to be done without prescribing a limitation, ordinarily, such things shall be accomplished within a

¶53

¶54

WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶55

reasonable time. An argument to the contrary would breed more public mischief than otherwise.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner is more than justified in banking upon the decision of the Apex Court in NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI vs. SATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2018 (1) KAR L.R. 5 (SC) which is animated with the aforementioned long standing rule of law imbibed by all civilized jurisdictions. There is also force in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners that since the land is already acquired for the benefit of KIADB, the compensation is payable to his clients only. He is right in saying that payment is interdicted by the interim orders of this Court and therefore, a direction be issued to release the compensation in favour of the Petitioners.

¶57

In view of the above, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the 2^nd Respondent – Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-A).

¶58

Consequently, KIADB is directed to release the compensation in favour of the Petitioners after

¶59

WP No. 1776 of 2012

¶60

¶61

ascertaining their credentials within a period of 8 weeks,

¶62

failing which interest at the rate of 2% per month shall be

¶63

payable on the amount due.

¶64

No costs.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

Bsv

Sri Kothanur M Thammanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kothanur M Thammanna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M v Guruprasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Sampangiramu Vs M/S Petronet Mhb Ltd.

Mr. Syed Fayaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.M.T.Kempegowda Vs the Commissioner

Smt Shabi Rabi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Rajanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner