Disposed

Sri Narasimhegowda v. the Special Land Aquisition Officer

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023WP/3970/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-consideration of representations for re-determination of land acquisition compensation. The High Court noted that respondents agreed to consider the grievance, leading to the disposal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of; Petitioners instructed to appear before 1st respondent for further instructions regarding the grievance.

Sri Narasimhegowda Vs the Special Land Aquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 3970 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3970 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARASIMHEGOWDA, S/O NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/A SANABA KOPPALU, CHINNAKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶8

SMT. SAKAMMA, S/O LATE MUGANEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/A SANABA KOPPALU, CHINNAKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶9

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

¶10

SMT THOLASAMMA, W/O LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA, DEAD, REP BY HER LRS

¶11

3(A) SRI. RAMESH, S/O LATE HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A SANABA KOPPALU, CHINNAKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶12

SMT. KEMPAMMA, W/O LATE CHALUVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A SANABA KOPPALU, CHINNAKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶13

¶14

WP No. 3970 of 2022

¶15

SRI. NARAYANAGOWDA, S/O NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A SANABA KOPPALU, CHINNAKURLI HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 455.

¶16

(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED FOR P1 TO P5) …PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. P MAHESHA.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND AQUISITION OFFICER, DISTRICT COMMISIONER BUILDING, MANDYA-571 401.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDAY DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

¶21

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED., SURFACE WATER DATA, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, SESHADRI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001.

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,2 & 4; SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS DTD. 25.06.2010 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS FOR RE-DETERMINATION OF THE COMPENSATION VIDE ANNXURES B1 TO B5.

¶26

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

¶27

3 - WP No. 3970 of 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioners the losers of the land in acquisition are grieving against non-consideration of their representation dated 25.6.2010 in terms of Annexures-B1 to B5 wherein they have sought for damages for the subject period in terms of decision of the Apex Court in C.A.No.3838/2010 between SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER vs. KARIGOWDA & OTHERS , disposed off on 26.04.2010. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners also presses into service the decision of this court in W.P.No.5791/2022 between SRI.S.K.PUTTEGOWDA & OTHERS VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & OTHERS , disposed off vide judgment dated 24.1.2023.

¶30

After service of notice, learned AGA appears for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appears for 3^rd respondent-Nigama. Both they oppose the Writ Petition contending that several intrinsic issues are involved & therefore, it is better the Petitioners be

¶31

¶32

WP No. 3970 of 2022

¶33

relegated to Civil Court. Having so contended, learned

¶34

AGA now agrees to instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the Petitioner as has been aired in the subject representation, in accordance with law and in a time bound way keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court and of this Court supra . This is appreciable.

¶35

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-Nigama agrees to cooperate in the consideration of the said representation by furnishing necessary information available at the hands of his client.

¶36

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off,

¶37

costs having been made easy.

¶38

The Petitioners through their Advocate are put to notice to appear before the 1^st respondent on 5.4.2023 and take further instructions at his hands.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

cbc

Sri Narasimhegowda v. the Special Land Aquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narasimhegowda v. the Special Land Aquisition Officer

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

Ramananda Nayak Vs the District Registrar and Registrar

Shivappa Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri Sidlingappa Vs State of Karnataka

Victor Simon Vs State of Karnataka

Madhuri P. Kagi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.C.Lokesh Vs Mahila Co. Operative Bank Limited