Allowed

Smt.Ambuja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/6963/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the court directed Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to consider Petitioners' representations dated 16.08.2021 regarding compensation for land used sans acquisition. Based on prior precedent, the order directs consideration within three months without delay.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are directed to consider the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within three months.

Smt.Ambuja Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 6963 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6963 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. AMBUJA, W/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. KRISHNEGOWDA S/O LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF K G HALLI VILLAGE, TEKAL POST AND HOBLI, MALURU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 137. BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI SANDEEP K S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF K G HALLI VILLAGE, TEKAL HOBLI, MALURU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 137.

¶12

(BY SRI. VENUGOPAL M S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATRAJ, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 6963 of 2023

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶22

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KOLAR ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 TO AWARD COMPENSATION FOR THE ILLEGAL USE OF THE LAND AND BUILDING FOR THE WIDENING OF THE ROAD IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION ACT 2013 BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.08.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE -,P1 AND P2 AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The short grievance of the petitioners is as to nonconsideration of their representation dated 16.08.2021 (Annexures-P, P1 and P2) wherein they have sought for payment of compensation in respect of a portion of their land & building that have been put to public rules sans acquisition process. In support of his contentions Learned

¶29

¶30

WP No. 6963 of 2023

¶31

counsel for the petitioners heavily banks upon the decision

¶32

of this Court in W.P.NO.17600/2004, NANDI INFRASTRACTURE CORRIDOR LTD., VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, disposed off on 15.06.2011 .

¶33

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents opposes the petition contending that whether the petitioners are the owners of the subject land & building and whether the same has been put to use or not, are questions of facts which can be better adjudged by the Civil Court and therefore petitioner should be relegated civil remedy, all contention being kept open. So contending he seeks dismissal of Writ Petition.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers. This court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, petitioners subject representation should be considered in the light of law declared by this Court in NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE , supra . Learned counsel for the petitioners is more than justified in drawing attention of

¶35

¶36

WP No. 6963 of 2023

¶37

the Court to non payment of compensation, whereby even

¶38

the court had levied heavy cost in lakhs of rupees the same having been enhanced by the Division Bench.

¶39

In view of the above, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are directed to consider petitioners subject representations in accordance with law, within a period of three months.

¶40

It is open to the respondents the solicit any information/ documents from the side of the Petitioner for consideration of subject Representations; however, in the guise of such solicitation, no delay shall be brooked. All contentions are kept open.

¶41

All contentions are kept open. Costs having been made easy.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Smt.Ambuja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ambuja 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Ramalingeshwara Math Harnahalli(Not Regd) Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. B.V. Siddaiah Vs Sri. Kariyaiah

Mrs T G Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Govindaraju Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri K v Srinivas Vs Smt Geetha Mohan

Sri S Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka