Dismissed

Smt Menaka v. the State of Karnataka and Others

Karnataka HC30 Jan 2023WP/34966/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a landowner seeking restoration of acquired land on the ground of non-utilization. The court held that since the acquisition was completed, possession taken, compensation paid, and the land put to use as mobile checkpost offices, the petition lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash preliminary and final notifications and restore land was dismissed; costs granted.

Smt Menaka Vs the State of Karnataka and Others — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 34966 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 34966 OF 2013 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MENAKA, W/O SRI. A. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT MARALU BAGILUR DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. KRISHNA NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

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

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER , DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX, GANDHI NAGAR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM-LAND-ACQUISITION OFFICER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, V.V. TOWER, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 34966 of 2013

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNX-A AND A1 DATED 7.8.12 IS ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-B FOR DENOTIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DATED 9.2.12 AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking to lay a challenge to the Preliminary Notification dated 17.08.1990 and Final Notification dated 22.01.1993 respectively at Annexures M & N on the ground that the same have become infructuous and therefore, the acquired land should be restored to her. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argues that once the purpose for which the land is acquired is not served, the land should be restored to the erstwhile land owner by denotifying the same from acquisition.

¶23

After service of notice, the Respondent - State has entered appearance through its AGA and the Respondent - BDA is represented by its Panel Counsel who has filed the Statement of Objections on 17.09.2014 resisting the Writ

¶24

¶25

WP No. 34966 of 2013

¶26

Petition. They make submission justifying the acquisition contending that the land is put to the use for which it was acquired and therefore, the Petition founded on a contra premise needs to be dismissed.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) was issued on 04.01.1990 17.08.1990 and Final Notification issued under Section was issued 6(1) on 22.01.1993 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award having been passed, the possession of the land has been taken and now the structure has been put up. Compensation in a sum of Rs.2,24,590/- has also been paid vide voucher dated 03.11.1993; that being the position, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

The contention that the land has not been put to use for which it has been acquired does not merit acceptance since on the subject land, the mobile checkpost offices have been built up at a cost of Rs.42.90

¶29

¶30

WP No. 34966 of 2013

¶31

Lakh sanctioned vide Government order dated

¶32

13.03.2013; this amount has been released to the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Ltd., a public sector undertaking vide letter dated 08.04.2013; after the completion of the construction, the building has been handed to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 11.03.2014 and the Commissioner has established a mobile check post vide Notification dated 21.07.2014; all this is vouched by copies of the Notifications and the photographs as well. The contention that once the land is not used for the purpose for which it is acquired thus does not merit consideration at all.

¶33

The above apart, the subject matter of this Writ Petition is fairly covered by the decision of the Apex Court in INDORE DEVELOPEMENTAL AUTHORITY vs. MANOHARLAL, 2020 (8) SCC 129 , wherein it is held that once acquisition has been duly accomplished and compensation has been paid, no shades of rights of ownership or otherwise do remain with the erstwhile

¶34

¶35

WP No. 34966 of 2013

¶36

owner thereof and in the absence of an enabling provision for restitution of the land, the acquisition cannot be undone on the ground that the said land is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired.

¶37

In view of the above, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made easy.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Smt Menaka v. the State of Karnataka and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Menaka v. the State of Karnataka and Others

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

Sri a Sathyanarayanaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

The Official Liquidator of Vs Nill

Official Liquidator of Vs Nill

M R Sudesh Vs State of Karnataka

T N Chandrashekar Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

S G R Buildtech L L P Vs Bangalore Development Authority