Disposed

Rajegowda v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023WP/2589/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding unauthorized land acquisition, the Karnataka High Court directed respondents to consider payment of compensation under the RFR Act, 2013, and submit a proposal within three months, relegating the question of public purpose to a civil suit.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider grievance and submit a proposal for payment of compensation within three months.

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2589 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 2589 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAJEGOWDA, S/O LATE MUDLIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

G S GOVINDEGOWDA, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶11

RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶12

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

¶13

G N GOVINDEGOWDA, S/O LATE NARASIMHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶14

HARISHA, S/O LATE SOWBHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶15

HANUMANTHEGOWDA, S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶16

CHANDREGOWDA, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 2589 of 2023

¶19

KANTHEGOWDA, S/O LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶20

TAYAMMA, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶21

RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶22

THAMMANNEGOWDA, S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶23

MEENAKSHAMMA, W/O LATE SWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶24

ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE THE RESIDENTS OF GULUVINA ATTIGUPPE VILLAGE, HOSA-AGRAHARA HOBLI, KRISHNARAJANAGARA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571601.

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI. DHANANJAYA V S., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD.,

¶29

#4, H R B C , SUB DIVISION, DODDAKADANURU HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT -573211.

¶30

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT - 571401.

¶31

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU -570001.

¶32

¶33

WP No. 2589 of 2023

¶34

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., ANANDRAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE CITY – 560001.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

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

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS TO THE R-1 TO SUBMIT THE PROPOSAL 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 ACQUIRED AND POSSESSION WAS TAKEN AS PER THE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The short grievance of the petitioners as alleged

¶41

in the petition is as to appropriation of their land and trees

¶42

& crops that stood therein without due acquisition process and therefore, they seek a direction for payment of the compensation in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 2589 of 2023

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners placing

¶46

reliance on the decision of P.G.BELLIAPPA VS. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 2019 (3) KAR.L.J 795, submits that the property rights having been constitutionally guaranteed u/a 300A, robbing of private property by the State entities is impermissible and therefore, at least damages/compensation should be paid to the petitioners in terms of the representation dated 8.10.2020.

¶47

Learned AGA appearing for respondent

¶48

Nos.2 & 3 and learned Panel Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 4, oppose the Petition contending that whether the subject land has been put to use or not for public purpose, is a matter that can be ascertained in an appropriate suit, writ jurisdiction not being suitable, and therefore, petitioners should be relegated to ordinary civil remedy. Having so contended, learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Kaveri Neeravari Nigama, agrees to instruct his clients to look into grievance of the petitioners

¶49

¶50

WP No. 2589 of 2023

¶51

in terms of the subject representation, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-B, in accordance with law and in a time bound manner, more particularly, keeping in view the law declared in P.G.Belliappa supra. This is appreciable.

¶52

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off. For accomplishing the task, a period of three months is granted and delay if brooked may entail the respondents with heavy costs payable personally by them.

¶53

It is open to the answering Respondents to solicit any information/documents from the side of the Petitioners for due consideration of his Representation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked. All contentions are kept open.

¶54

Now, no costs.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

cbc

Rajegowda v. the Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajegowda 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.S. Ramakrishnan Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Jayalakshmi, Vs Smt Yellamma

Smt Shabhana Banu Vs the State of Karnataka

T Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B C Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

L.N. Sudheendra Rao Vs the State of Karnataka