Disposed

S. P. Kumar v. Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/36525/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that while the petitioners' grievance regarding unacknowledged representations was valid, they were directed to submit fresh representations with material within four weeks for reconsideration by the authority within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to submit fresh representation with material within four weeks; Respondent-1 to consider it within four months.

S. P. Kumar Vs Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 36525 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 36525 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

S. P. KUMAR, S/O PRASANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT SHANMUKAIAH ROAD, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶7

S.G. VEDHAVATHI, W/O S.C. JAYAGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.52, MAIN ROAD, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶8

ABDUL MAZEED KHAN S.R., S/O S P RASHEED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, MILAN TRADERS, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶9

S.G. RAJU, Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, PARLATTAYA S TIRUMALA SPACES, Location: High Court SAKLESHPURA, of Karnataka HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶10

P.R. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O C.RAMADAS, R/AT LAKSHMIDAS LODGE, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 134.

¶11

SYED WASIM, S/O SYED GOUS, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT A.R.OPTICALS, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶12

¶13

WP No. 36525 of 2018

¶14

C.V. GURAPPA GOWDA, S/O TAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SAMPATH PROVISION STORES, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶15

RAJESH ACHAR, S/O KATTANNACHAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NEAR BRIDGE, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶16

ANTONY SWAMY, S/O RAJENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, MERCHANT, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶17

S.M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O S.R.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SRI SHANKARI COMPLEX, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶18

K.S. PRABHAKAR, S/O K.SREENIVAS MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, LAKSHMI CONDIMENTS, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶19

S.K. YOGESH, S/O KATTANACHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NEAR HEMAVATHI BRIDGE, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶20

S.N. MANJUNATH, S/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SRI MANJUNATH CENTRE, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶21

¶22

WP No. 36525 of 2018

¶23

S.L. SUBRAYA SETTY, S/O C.Y. LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, LAKSHYA POINT, SAKLESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶24

VINODKUMAR, S/O SHANTHILALJI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, SMART MENS BEAUTY PARLOUR, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 134.

¶25

ANAND B.D. S/O B N DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BALAJI BANGLE STORES, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶26

ISMAIL, S/O MOHIDDIN BERI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MODI CANTEEN NEAR BRIDGE, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶27

S.C. JAYAGOPAL, S/O S. CHELUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 51, GANDHI BAZAR, B.M.ROAD, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT- 573 134.

¶28

SUBRAMANYA TAVALA, S/O SRINIVAS TAVALA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SOWMYA CONDIMENTS, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶29

S. A. VENKATESH, S/O ANNAJI HATTARE, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RAGHAVENDRA AUDIO AND VIDEO SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 134.

¶30

4 - WP No. 36525 of 2018

¶31

SHIVAKUMAR, S/O NANJUDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BHARATH TEA HOUSE, SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134.

¶32

…PETITIONERS

¶33

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR ABMEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶36

SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶37

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.

¶38

LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, S/O SHARATH CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, WORKING AS A ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER & LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SAKLESHPURA SUB-DIVISION, SAKLESHPURA - 573 134, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶39

PRL. SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 & R5; SRI. C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶42

¶43

WP No. 36525 of 2018

¶44

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER PETITIONER REPRESENTATION DATED 14.8.2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A, DIRECT THE R-1 AUTHORITY TO CONSITUTE COMMITTEE TO HOLD DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY AGAISNT THE R-4 SRI LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, WORKING AS A ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION SAKLESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT AS ALLEGATION MADE IN THE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶45

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

¶46

ORDER

¶47

Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking for direction to respondent no.1 to consider representations dated 14.08.2018 at Annexure-A; to hold departmental enquiry and register criminal cases against respondent no.4, etc.

¶48

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that at time of widening of Bengaluru - Mangaluru road (N.H.-48) passing through municipal limits of Sakleshpura Town, respondent no.4 - then Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, who committed excesses and illegally demolished buildings and properties of petitioners.

¶49

This Court in W.P.no.30738-30757/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 14.01.2019, reserved liberty to petitioners to submit representation to Government against illegal demolition. It was further submitted that respondents were directed to hold enquiry and in case, officials were found

¶50

¶51

WP No. 36525 of 2018

¶52

guilty, compensation payable to petitioners towards loss sustained was to be recovered from said officials.

¶53

It was further submitted that in terms of said directions, petitioners had submitted representation, which had remained without consideration and non-consideration despite lapse of considerable amount of time called for interference.

¶54

On other hand, learned HCGP sought to oppose writ petition on ground that writ petition was not maintainable. It was submitted that representation at Annexure-A does not bear acknowledgement of receipt by respondents and therefore, based on such representation, petitioners cannot seek for any direction and sought for dismissal of writ petition.

¶55

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition.

¶56

On perusal of order passed in W.P.no.30738-

¶57

30757/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 14.01.2019, it is seen that this Court granted liberty to petitioners/landloosers who had sustained damage due to illegal demolition of their buildings, to submit representation to respondents for holding enquiry about illegal/high handed demolition and in case, it were to be found high handed, to hold concerned officials responsible and recover compensation payable to

¶58

¶59

WP No. 36525 of 2018

¶60

petitioners from them. It was clarified that said measure would

¶61

be apart from approaching Civil Court for final relief.

¶62

Since this Court had granted liberty to petitioners to make representation and mandated enquiry by respondents, these petitions could, in any case, be disposed of by directing petitioners to give fresh representations and also to direct respondents to consider same within time limit.

¶63

Accordingly, petition is disposed of , directing petitioners to give fresh representation to respondents along with relevant material, if any, within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy of this order under acknowledgement.

¶64

Respondent no.1 shall thereafter consider same in accordance with law and directions issued by this Court in W.P.no.30738-30757/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 14.01.2019 within an outer limit of four months from today and inform petitioners about result of such consideration, forthwith.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

Psg*

S. P. Kumar v. Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. P. Kumar v. Chief Secretary

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

M/S M M Creations Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Nagendrappa S/O Gundappa Gowda Vs Chinnappagowda S/O Manjappa Gowda

Chandranayaka Vs Javaranayaka

Sri.D.G.Siddanagowda Vs Pragati Krishna Gramin Bank

Sri H N Sathyanarayana Rao I.P.S.(Retd) Vs State of Karnataka

Valarian Alphonso S/O Baptist Alphonso Vs Stephania Alias Stepheny Alphonso