Disposed

Sri v. Divakar v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2023WP/24387/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging non-consideration of enhanced compensation claims. The court held that compensable claims for sold land arise only after RTS proceedings for submerged land conclude, directing the Assistant Commissioner to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Direction to Assistant Commissioner to dispose RTS proceedings within three months. Compensation for submerged land to be determined and deposited.

Sri v Divakar Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 24387 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 24387 OF 2018 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. V. DIVAKAR, S/O GOPALA SALIAN, (EX-SERVICEMAN), AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. ASHA DIVAKAR, W/O V DIVAKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, (BOTH ARE R/AT DOOR NO.25-2-118/6, FLAT NO.104, ANVITA APARTMENT, KANKANADY OLD ROAD, KANKANADY, MANGALORE – 575 002, DHAKSHINA KANNADA). …PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMA BHAT K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP.BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN PLANNING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAMPANAKATTA, MANGALORE – 575 003, DHAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 24387 of 2018

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, LALBAGH, MANGALORE – 575 002, DHAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, LALBAGH, MANGALORE – 575 002, DHAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.GIRIDHAR H., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 27.01.2018 VIDE ANNX-A AND THEREBY DIRECT THE R-2 TO PAY THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION AS PER THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE FOR THE LANDS SIMILARLY SITUATED ON THE SITE OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.75. AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Petitioners - land losers are ventilating the grievances in Writ jurisdiction as to non-consideration of their representation dated 27.01.2018, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A wherein, they have sought for the enhancement of compensation both in respect of the lands

¶25

¶26

WP No. 24387 of 2018

¶27

comprised in the subject Sale Deeds, made over to the State and the other land that is now submerged. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that the right to property having been constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A, the State cannot take away, the private property without giving adequate compensation, notwithstanding what has been paid in terms of the Sale Deeds.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners further argues that in respect of the submerged land, the compensation has to be determined normatively under Section 26 of the Right to Compensation Act, 2013 and not on the basis of the consensual proceedings held under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner since his clients have not signified their consent to the proposal that is accepted by the other land losers.

¶29

After service of notice, the respondents nos. 1

¶30

& 2 have entered appearance through the learned AGA.

¶31

¶32

WP No. 24387 of 2018

¶33

The Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 are represented by their Panel Counsel. Both the advocates vehemently oppose the petition contending that once the consideration amount is accepted and Sale Deeds have been executed on 25.01.2018 & 28.02.2018, the land losers are only the sellers and therefore cannot seek anything in excess. In respect of subsumed land, it is contended that they would instruct their clients to look into the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law once the pending RTS proceedings are disposed off.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is in complete agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondent. Admittedly, petitioners have sold the land by executing & registering two sale deeds in respect of particular lands after receiving the sale price as is reflected in Annexures-E & F. Once price is paid for the sale transaction, it is not a case of compulsive acquisition

¶35

¶36

WP No. 24387 of 2018

¶37

under the 1894 Act. Therefore, compensation or additional compensation cannot be sought for as a matter of right. That being the position, the question of considering petitioners representation so far as the lands comprised in the sale deeds would not arise.

¶38

There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of submerged land compensation has to be paid as provided under the provisions of Sec.26 of the 2013 Act. However, the question of paying the compensation would arise only after and subject to outcome of the RTS proceedings pending on the file of jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Sec.136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. This having been said, the pendency of the said proceeding would not interdict the determination of the compensation amount, although its payment can be deferred, as rightly argued by counsel for the petitioners.

¶39

¶40

WP No. 24387 of 2018

¶41

Petitioners are right in submitting that the compensation for the submerged land has to be determined without reference to the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner held on 23.10.2017 unless there is evidentiary material to hold that petitioners too are signatories to the same. However this is a matter in respect of which call has to be taken by the respondentDeputy Commissioner and in this regard all contentions need to be kept open.

¶42

Petitioners counsel is also justified in insisting upon a direction to the Assistant Commissioner for the expeditious disposal of RTS proceedings so that the constitutional guarantee to the property rights is meaningful. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner should hear & dispose off the said proceedings within an outer limit of three months, in any circumstances. On the basis of the outcome of the same, the decision to disburse the compensation to the owners of the land has to be

¶43

¶44

WP No. 24387 of 2018

¶45

taken within two months thereafter. However in the meanwhile, the compensation shall be determined and put in a Court deposit.

¶46

In the above circumstances and with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off. It is open to the answering Respondents to solicit any information or documents from the side of Petitioners subject to the rider that in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked.

Now, no costs.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri v. Divakar v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Divakar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vimala Anantharamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh Bhat Vs Netmagic Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Kirtivan D. Kotian Vs Mohan Singh

Smt Rajamma Vs the Commissioner

M.A. Davis Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohan Kumar Patel Vs the State of Karnataka