Disposed

Sri Shankaranna v. the State of Karnatak a

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2023WP/6831/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding land acquisition compensation. While noting the petitioner had received compensation based on agreed dimensions, the Court directed a survey of the acquired land to determine the true extent. Petitioners and stakeholders must participate in this survey to establish if additional land was taken.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed Respondents KIADB and BMRCL to conduct an aerial survey of the acquired land within eight weeks and pay proportionate damages if the survey reveals the taken area exceeds what is me

Sri Shankaranna Vs the State of Karnatak a — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6831 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6831 OF 2021 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHANKARANNA, S/O LATE YELLAMATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEKKUNDIPETE, CHINTAMANI-563 125. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.KALYAN R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPAWRTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-01.

¶15

REPTD BY SECRETARY.

¶16

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE: BMTC COMPLEX, 3^RD FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-27. REPTD. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

THE CHIEF MANAGER AND ESTATE, BMRCL, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE 01.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MAHARISHI ARAVIND BHAVAN,

¶19

¶20

WP No. 6831 of 2021

¶21

1^ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-01.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1; SRI. HARISH N N, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 28.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-A AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 27.10.2020 AND 02.11.2020 VIDE ANNX-B AND C AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that the compensation as was offered for the land acquired has not been given and what has been handed to him is much lesser than what was so offered. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the BMRCL Letter dated 13.11.2017 addressed to the SLAO of the KIADB. He also complains that regardless of what is stated in the acquisition notifications, the extent of land actually taken is more than what is notified and therefore, compensation has to be paid, even for that, consistent with the spirit of Article 300A of the Constitution as had

¶28

¶29

WP No. 6831 of 2021

¶30

been held by the Apex Court in K.T.PLANTATAION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA , (2011) 9 SCC 1.

¶31

Learned Panel Advocates appearing for the Respondent KIADB and the Respondent BMRCL vehemently oppose the petition contending that the petitioner having received the entire compensation has executed an agreement cum acknowledgment and therefore, no relief can be granted. They also contend that the land taken from the petitioner perfectly accords with the dimension mentioned in the acquisition records and therefore, no question of paying additional compensation/damages arises.

¶32

The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.43719/2014 (LAKIADB) between C.N.SRINIVASA RAO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS , disposed off on 13.3.2023, wherein the claim for payment of higher compensation has been negatived by this Court heavily banking upon the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 6831 of 2021

¶35

terms of the agreement, that are almost in identical formats. A specific term of the agreement dated 02.03.2018 at Annexure R5 reads as under:

¶36

“3. The payment of the compensation to the owner of the schedule property is towards full and final settlement. The owner if not entitled it seek the reference for enhancement of the Compensation under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 either for the Building or for the structure standing there on or any benefit arising from the schedule property.

¶37

6. There is no duress, force or coercion for the parties to enter into this agreement of their Own volition.”

¶38

Therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner

¶39

as specifically sought for in terms of texted prayers.

¶40

The above having been said, there is some force in the vehement submission made by learned counsel for Petitioner that, if non – conventional survey such as aerial survey is undertaken, the KIADB and BMRCL can come out with true statistics on the ground as to the extent of land the latter is holding. This Court does not find any strong reason as to why the same cannot be done.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 6831 of 2021

¶43

In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed off directing the Respondent – KIADB and BMRCL to cause aerial survey or such other advanced kind of survey of the land acquired from the petitioner within a period of eight weeks. If, the extent of land taken from him is more than what is mentioned in the acquisition notifications, then proportionately damages have to be paid, keeping in mind the rates of compensation, that have already been operated qua the petitioner. This has to be done with next eight weeks and after notice to the Petitioners and other stakeholders.

¶44

Ordered accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed off,

¶45

costs having been made easy.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

cbc

Sri Shankaranna v. the State of Karnatak a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shankaranna v. the State of Karnatak a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padma K Vs the State of Karnataka

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

C Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K S Yadiyur Sidalingeswara Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Commissioner

Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka