Dismissed

Smt O L Kalpana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2023WP/22599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered a writ petition seeking a mandate to initiate acquisition proceedings for land in Sy.No.117/3. The Court dismissed the petition, finding the premise that the wrong property was taken was incorrect, as the acquisition specifically targeted a different portion (Khata No.170/170) without the Petitioner filing objections to the preliminary notification.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed off, reserving liberty to seek amendments to enhance compensation.

Smt O L Kalpana Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22599 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 22599 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. O.L. KALPANA ALIAS KALPANA PALEGAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O PRASAD PALEGAR R/AT NO.22, 8^TH CROSS, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. G.K.BHAVANA.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶15

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED REG OFFICE: BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 22599 of 2022

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER (METRO RAILWAY PROJECT) KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.S.NANGANAND, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. N.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND PROPOSED TO BE UTILIZED BY THEM IN SY.NO.117/3 OF SHETTIGERE VILLAGE AND PAY THE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

WP No. 22599 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner claiming to be the land owner of property in Sy.No.117/3 of Settigere Village is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of her property. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that the right to property having been guaranteed under Article 300A, the private property cannot be taken except without due process of law in support of his contention, he banks upon decision of the Apex Court in K.T.PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2011) 9 SCC 1 .

¶28

After service of notice, the State is represented by the learned AGA, Respondent-BMRCL is represented by its Panel Counsel and Respondent-KIADB is represented through its Panel Advocate. All they oppose the Petition contending that the Apex Court in the case of GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS. ETC. Vs.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 22599 of 2022

¶31

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AND ORS., AIR 1992 SC 2078, has held that no mandamus can be issued for property acquired in exercise of eminent domain, such a power being within the realm of the Executive discretion. Petitioner also apprehends that some property other than the one notified is being taken away by the Respondents stating that they are only concerned with the property bearing No.170/170 in the BBMP Records to the extent of 2421.49 Sq.Mtrs and nothing else. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents and therefore, question of issuing a Writ of Mandamus would not arise.

¶33

In fact, the contention of the Petitioner is structured on a wrong premise that some other property belonging to her is being taken away when what is actually

¶34

¶35

WP No. 22599 of 2022

¶36

being taken away is only property in BBMP Katha No.170/170 admeasuring 2421.49 Sq.Mtrs. In fact, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the BMRCL is justified in pointing out this, the factum from his clients Statement of Objections. In the proceedings drawn by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 10.10.2019, correct identification & dimension of the property concerned is specifically recorded. Added, the Petitioner had not filed any objections following the Preliminary Notification issued u/s 28(1) of the KIADB Act, 1966.

¶37

In all fairness, the 2^nd Respondent i.e., beneficiary of acquisition has filed a Memo dated 23.01.2023, which clarifyingly reads as under:

¶38

" It is submitted that under Preliminary Notification dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure-R6) and Final Notification dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure-R8, a portion of the property of the petitioner bearing Khata No.170/170 carved out of Old Sy.No.79 of Shettigere Village was acquired for the purpose of construction of a viaduct leading to the Shettigere Depot of the Bangalore Metro Rail Project.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 22599 of 2022

¶41

The petitioner has stated in paragraph 9 of her Statement of Objections to the IA for Vacating Interim Order, that the property of the Petitioner in Sy.No.117/1 is given Khata No.147 and that her property in Sy.No.117/3 is given Khata No.170/170.

¶42

It is hereby submitted that under the acquisition notifications mentioned above, BMRCL has not acquired any portion of the petitioner's property bearing Khata No.147 and what is acquired is an extent measuring 2421.49 sqmtrs in property bearing Khata No.170/170."

¶43

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to seek necessary amendments in the proceedings for enhancement of compensation in the light of the stand taken by the Respondents upon which this Court has acted upon in disposing off the Writ Petition.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Smt O L Kalpana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt O L Kalpana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Summaiya Khanum Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Hameeda Begum Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Sri K S Ramesh Vs the President / Secretary

M/S Moola Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Moola Investments (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka