Petitioner challenged an SLAO order denying claim due to title dispute. Court upheld order, noting SLAO limited jurisdiction under 1894 Act, and directed Civil Court for title adjudication.
Petitioner directed to approach appropriate Civil Court for adjudication of title dispute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.709 OF 2023 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
MYSORE VENKATASWAMY CHETTIAR TRUST, REGISTERED UNDER TRUST ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 9A, BEACH ROAD, OPP. TALUK OFFICE, CUDDALORE TALUK OFFICE, CUDDALORE TALUK AND DISTRICT, TAMILNADU - 607 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE K VENKATESAN CHETTIAR.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GAUTAM SHREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BEARING NO. BDA/DR.SKL/SLAO-6/CS16/2021-22 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY REMAND THE MATTER AFRESH TO THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE PETITIONER TRUSTS CASE FOR GRANT OF COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN COURT APPEAL NO.7661-7663/2018 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE - N; AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The essential grievance of the Petitioner is as to the
order of SLAO made on 14.06.2022, wherein it is inter alia observed as under:
"Now, even to the extent of 51 acres 07 guntas in Survey No.77 and 130 the claimant is unable to produce the documents, except those specifically mentioned above. There are various persons whose names are forthcoming as per the preliminary and final notification and since there is a "cloud on the title" of the present claimant, this office is not the competent forum to adjudicate upon the title and rights of the claimant vis-a-vis the grantees by the State Government. The applicant/claimant has to independently establish his rights and title over the notified lands of Byalakere village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk
3
before an appropriate forum or competent authority.
As such, without expressing any opinion on the title or rights of the applicant/claimant I deem it appropriate to dispose the objection filed by the claimant. Ordered accordingly."
4
cannot be faltered. He also points out that the Petitioner has got alternate & more efficacious remedy in terms of Apex Court decision in DHULABHAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, AIR 1969 SC 78 . So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Costs made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer erred in dismissing the claim due to clouded title without adjudicating the title dispute.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by denying the claimant an opportunity to produce documents to establish title.
Whether the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy in Civil Court for adjudication of title disputes.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶29
DHULABHAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, AIR 1969 SC 78 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mysore Venkataswamy Chettiar Trust
State of Karnataka
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
