Allowed

Agadi Ashok v. Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC29 Aug 2023WP/8484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The court quashed orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC regarding a land acquisition compensation dispute and directed that the reference be reconsidered by the designated Reference Court under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 28.07.2022 and 30.01.2023 in LAC No.103/2015 and Review Petition No.1/2022 are quashed. Matter is remanded to the designated Reference Court under Section 64 of the Right to Fair

Agadi Ashok Vs Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:31034 WP No. 8484 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 8484 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

AGADI ASHOK, S/O AGADI KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 72 YEARS, R/O SHIRALAKOPPA TOWN, SHIRALAKOPPA POST, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577 201.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.S.P.SHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

¶12

SMT. MAMATA G KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGA-577 201.

¶18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PLAN IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAY, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CRESCENT TOWERS(ADJACENT TO MALLIGE NURSING HOME), CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA)

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31034 WP No. 8484 of 2023

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.103/2015, ON THE FILE OF COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIKARIPURA AND THE RECORDS IN R.P 1/22 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA AND TO QUASH THE ORDERS 28.07.2022 AND 30.01.2023 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIKARIPURA PASSED THEREIN, AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B, BY ISSUING WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶26

The petitioner, who is the owner of 2 acres and 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.183 of Shiralakoppa Village, Udagani Hobli, Shiralakoppa Taluk, is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripuar in Review Petition No.1/2022 and in LAC No.103/2015 dated 30.01.2023 and 28.07.2022, respectively.

¶27

At the threshold, an objection is raised at the hands of the learned AGA that the learned Senior Civil

¶28

Judge and JMFC could not have entertained a Review Petition at the hands of the petitioner and further, the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:31034 WP No. 8484 of 2023

¶31

petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate before this Court an order passed in the Review Petition.

¶32

Learned Senior counsel Sri S.P.Shankar,

¶33

appearing for the petitioner submits that initially when this Court heard submissions on behalf of the petitioner, this Court wanted to ascertain as to whether the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the New Act, 2013'). This Court felt it necessary because there was a direction given by the learned Senior Civil Judge and

¶34

JMFC, Shikaripura in the Review Petition that if law permits, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the request made by the petitioner in the Review Petition and assess the total compensation which the petitioner is entitled by fixing the value at Rs.475/- per square feet for the acquired land and pay the same to the petitioner.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:31034 WP No. 8484 of 2023

¶37

Today, learned Additional Government Advocate

¶38

has furnished the original of the award and data material.

¶39

Learned Senior counsel has also gone through

¶40

the award and the data material and it is fairly clear that the award has been passed on the basis of the provisions of the Act, 2013.

¶41

Learned Senior counsel Sri S.P.Shankar submits

¶42

that the award notice was received by the petitioner on 23.05.2015 and on the same day, the petitioner submitted a protest application under Section 64 of the New Act, 2013 and sought reference to the Civil Court. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, instead of referring the matter in terms of Section 64 of the New Act, 2013, referred the matter to the learned Senior Civil Judge and the learned Senior Civil Judge has purportedly acted under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned Senior counsel would, therefore, submit that many known or unknown mistakes have occurred in this proceedings. However, this Court should take note of the fact that

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:31034 WP No. 8484 of 2023

¶45

immediately after the New Act, 2013 was brought into force, the State Government had not constituted the Authority to consider the reference that could be made under Section 64. However, on 10.01.2017, a notification was issued by the State Government notifying and designating the First Additional District and Sessions Judge

¶46

of each district as the Presiding Officer of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority for that district.

¶47

Having found that a notification was issued only on 10.01.2017, this Court can only presume that the Special Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the Senior Civil Judge, since there was no other Authority designated by the State Government to consider an order of reference. Nevertheless, now since this Court has found that the learned Senior Civil Judge could not have considered the order in reference and he could not have entertained a Review Petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that in order to meet the ends of

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:31034 WP No. 8484 of 2023

¶50

justice, the matter is required to be reconsidered at the hands of the designated Reference Court i.e., the First Additional District and Sessions Judge of Shivamogga District or any another Judge, who has been designated as the Reference Authority, to consider the reference under Section 64 of the New Act, 2013.

¶51

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20.07.2022 in LAC No.103/2015 and the order dated 30.01.2023 in Review Petition No.1/2023, both passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura, are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter stands referred to the designated Authority under Section 64 of the New Act, 2013 to reconsider the order of reference, which shall be determined under the New Act, 2013.

¶52

Office is directed to transmit the papers to the designated Authority. The designated Authority shall issue notice to the petitioner, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and afford an opportunity of hearing to both the

¶53

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:31034 WP No. 8484 of 2023

¶54

parties and thereafter, determine the reference sought at the hands of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

Office is directed to return the original documents furnished by the petitioner along with memo dated 22.08.2023 and the certified copies of both the impugned orders.

¶56

Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Agadi Ashok v. Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agadi Ashok v. Chief Secretary

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

Mysuru City Power Loom Owners Vs State of Karnataka

Veeradomanahalli Primary Agricultural Vs State of Karnataka

Nagamahadevu Vs the Assistant Registrar

V. S. Naik, Vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Shivappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivasa R K Vs the State of Karnataka