Disposed

Sri Thimmaiah v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2023WP/6164/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a preliminary hearing in a writ petition challenging the quashing of an acquisition notification. The petitioner lacks title due to a subsisting 'pada' order. The court granted a three-month direction for disposal of the 'pada' challenge and dismissed the petition without interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Directed the jurisdictional Tahasildar to dispose of the pending challenge to the 'pada' order within three months; writ petition disposed; costs awarded; request for interim protection rejected.

Sri Thimmaiah Vs the State of Karnataka by Its — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 6164 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6164 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. THIMMAIAH, S/O LATE ERAMALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, (BENEFIT OF SENIORITY CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED)

¶9

SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH, S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶10

SRI.SHIVAKUMARAIAH, S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶11

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

¶12

ALL ARE R/O GOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TQ AND DISTRICT.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. H N BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶17

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE,

¶19

¶20

WP No. 6164 of 2022

¶21

MARUTHI TOWERS, 1^ST FLOOR, BESIDE SIT COLLEGE, B H ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 103.

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DIST, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB DIVISION, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU – 572 101.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1, R3, R4 & R5; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 10.02.2022 ISSUED BY R-2 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AS PER ANNX-J AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ACQUISITION AS CULMINATED IN THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DTD. 30.10.2014 IN GAZETTED ON 06.11.2014 IN SO FAR AS THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS PER ANNX-C AND ETC.,

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶31

for assailing the KIADB endorsement dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-J) and as a consequence, he seeks quashment

¶32

of the acquisition notification dated 30.10.2014 issued u/s 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,

¶33

1966, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-C.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 6164 of 2022

¶36

Learned counsel for the Petitioners banking

¶37

upon a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P.Nos.12764-

¶38

65/2012, between SHIVAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, disposed off on 28.01.2013 as affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.4628/2013 & 306/2014, between THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER vs. SRI SHIVAPPA AND OTHERS, disposed off on 24.04.2015, argues that unless the ‘ pada’ matter is passed in accordance with law, the same cannot be given effect to or taken cognizance of since the right to property though not a fundamental right continues to be constitutionally guaranteed u/a 300A and as a consequence, the endorsement and the acquisition notification needs to be voided.

¶39

Learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3

¶40

to 5 and learned Senior Panel Counsel appears for respondent-SLAO, KIADB. Both they contend that rightly

¶41

or wrongly once the ‘ pada’ is made u/s 163 of the

¶42

¶43

WP No. 6164 of 2022

¶44

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, for all ostensible purposes, the person who has suffered the same ceases to have title to the land in question and therefore, he has no locus standii to challenge the acquisition at all. Having so contended, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter in the sense that the challenge to the ‘ pada’ order pending on the file of jurisdictional Tahasildar has to be disposed off expeditiously and in accordance with law. Subject to outcome of such a challenge, the petitioners can on the same cause of action revive the Writ Petition by filing an application. In that connection, all contentions need to be kept open. Justice of the case warrants that there should be a direction to the jurisdictional Tahasildar to hear & dispose off the challenge within a period of three months on the presentation of a copy of this judgment. However, the repeated request of the counsel for petitioners for

¶46

¶47

WP No. 6164 of 2022

¶48

grant of interim protection is rejected since as already stated above, petitioners do not have title to the land itself as on this day

¶49

Ordered accordingly & Writ Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.

¶50

It is open to the Petitioners to formally file objections to the respondent-KIADB which would merit consideration if the ‘ pada’ order is recalled or set aside.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

cbc

Sri Thimmaiah v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Thimmaiah v. the State of Karnataka by Its

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

Official Liquidator of Vs Nil

Smt. Rashmi R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Raja Reddy Vs National Highways Authority of India

Sri. Y N Nagaraj, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Saratchandran Nair Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka