Disposed

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2023WP/4769/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-mentioning of their name in land acquisition records. Respondents agreed to consider objections via representation. Court disposed petition, holding compensation pending decision, relying on Article 226 and 227.

What did the court decide?

Respondents instructed to consider objections within time; compensation release held in suspense pending decision. No costs awarded.

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4769 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4769 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. SICGIL INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, RUQSHAD F DADABHOY, SLY NO 65/1 AND 65/2, KATTAMANALLUR VILLAGE, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560 049. (A REGD. COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHETAN JADHAV.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, CONTACT BUILDING, OPPOSITE ORION MALL, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 010.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 4769 of 2023

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK, KRISHNARAJPURA, BANGALORE 560 036.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING R-2 TO CONSIDER THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITONER COMPANY DTD 29/11/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND PASS AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND PAY COMPENSATION AS PER THE PRESENT MARKET VALUE UNDER THE NEW ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The essential grievance of the Petitioner is as to nonmentioning of name in the acquisition proceedings Notifications though it has bought the subject property much before the said acquisition process began. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the figuring of name in the acquisition proceedings Records has got its own advantages and that such advantages are associated with the Right to Property constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A. This apart, he adds that when such a grievance is raised by a citizen through representation of

¶26

¶27

WP No. 4769 of 2023

¶28

the kind, it is the bounden duty of the authorities to consider the same in accordance with law and in a time bound way in terms of Article 350 of the Constitution.

¶29

Learned AGA appears for the 1st & 3^rd Respondents and learned Sr. panel Counsel on request appears for Respondent No.2-Karnataka Road Development Corporation. Both they oppose the Petition contending that if the Petitioners have got any grievance, they should seek redressal in the appropriate Court which may arguably be under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Having so contended, the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the 2^nd Respondent now agrees to instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the Petitioner as has been aired in the subject representation dated 29.11.2022, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-H in accordance with law and in a time bound way. This is appreciable.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 4769 of 2023

¶32

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

¶33

making it clear that till a decision is taken on the subject representation, any compensation payable shall not be released in favour of any one.

¶34

No costs.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Bsv

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

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

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Society for Child and Women Empowerment

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S. Kerala Fashion Jewellery

Jamnalal Bajaj Seva Trust Vishwa Needam Farm Vs State of Karnataka

Padma K Vs the State of Karnataka

C Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddagangamma Vs State of Karnataka