Allowed

Ningamma v. the Land Acquisition Officer and

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2023WP/36738/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Additional District Judge's dismissal of a claim for enhanced compensation for land acquired for a pipeline. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to the judge's failure to examine documentary evidence sufficient to assess actual market value.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 28.04.2018 quashed. Matter remanded to Additional District Judge for reconsideration. Parties directed to appear for hearing on 05.04.2023.

Ningamma Vs the Land Acquisition Officer and — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 36738 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.36738 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

NINGAMMA, W/O LAKKAPPA, MAJOR, R/O 35^TH WARD, MEGALAHOSKOPPALU VILLAGE, HASSAN. REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI PUTTASWAMY, S/O LATE H.V. LAKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O MEGALAHOSKOPPALU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SANTOSH R. NELKUDURI.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, MANGALORE-BANGALORE PIPELINE PROJECT, NO.7, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-79.

¶12

THE AUTHORIZED AUTHORITY, MANGALORE-BANGALORE PIPELINE SCHEME, D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND, MANGALURU-01.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.K.SHRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN DATED 28.4.2018 IN MISC NO.20/2003 AS PER ANNEXURE-H.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 36738 of 2018

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Challenging impugned order dated 28.04.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in

¶20

Misc.no.20/2003, this writ petition is filed.

¶21

Sri Santosh R Nelkuduri, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is owner of land measuring 09 guntas situated at Sy.no.10/2 of Channapatna village, Hassan town. For transportation of petroleum products, respondent no.2 laid pipelines passing through land of petitioner. Thereafter, respondent no.1 determined compensation for same.

¶22

Not satisfied with quantum of compensation, petitioner herein approached Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan under Section 10 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ' P&MP Act ' for short).

¶23

After service of notice, respondents filed objections.

¶24

3 - WP No. 36738 of 2018

¶25

Based on pleadings, learned District Judge framed

¶26

following points for consideration:

¶27

Whether the compensation awarded by the respondents in respect of land belonged to petitioner, is just and proper?

¶28

Whether petitioner is entitled to get enhanced compensation. If so, to what extent?

¶29

What order?

¶30

On consideration, learned District Judge answered

¶31

point no.1 in affirmative, point no.2 in negative and point no.3 by dismissing petition.

¶32

Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

It was submitted that though petitioner had produced application for conversion of land use as Ex.P1, sale deed as Ex.P2 and certified copy of guidance value of properties for year 1999-2000 issued by Sub-Registrar, Hassan as Ex.P9 and also deposed about basis for seeking enhancement, learned District Judge while passing impugned order has not assigned any reasons for rejecting petitioner's claim, but straightaway concluded that fixation of market value

¶34

¶35

WP No. 36738 of 2018

¶36

by competent authority was in accordance with provisions of P&MP Act. Therefore, same would call for interference.

¶37

On other hand, Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri B.K. Shridhar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to support impugned order. It was submitted that method for determination of compensation under provisions of Act, were as provided under Section 10(4) of P&MP Act, is 10% of market value of land, which was awarded and therefore, there was no scope for enhancement.

¶38

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and record.

¶39

On perusal of impugned order, it is seen that though learned District Judge has taken note of deposition of petitioner, wherein he stated about basis for seeking enhancement, while assessing said evidence, learned District Judge appears to have first concluded that fixation of market value was in accordance with P&MP Act, and thereafter proceeded to examine evidence before rejecting petitioner's claim. There is no detailed consideration of documentary evidence and there is no discussion about same. When statute

¶40

¶41

WP No. 36738 of 2018

¶42

mandates that compensation has to be with reference to actual market value, learned District Judge has to examine all material available to assess same. Since there is failure to do so impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶43

Hence, following:

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

i. Writ petition is allowed.

¶46

ii. Impugned order dated 28.04.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Misc.no.20/2003 is quashed.

¶47

iii. Matter is remanded back to Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan for reconsideration.

¶48

iv. To enable early conclusion of proceedings, parties are directed to appear before District Judge on 05.04.2023 without awaiting fresh and lead additional evidence, if any, within four months thereafter.

¶49

v. District Court shall thereafter dispose of matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

GRD

Ningamma v. the Land Acquisition Officer and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ningamma v. the Land Acquisition Officer and

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

Sri N C Mohan Vs Karnataka Medical Council

Sri. Lakshmi Venkateshwara Marbles Vs the State of Karnataka

N B Nanjundaiah Vs N N Yalaiahswamy

The Estate Officer Vs Kgf Tamil Sangham

Sri H K Gurumurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M a Ratnakar Shet Vs Sri S P Lokesh