Partly allowed

Smt.G. Rukminamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/100442/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed WP in part, treating it as a representation. Directed respondent authorities to hold an enquiry on land utilization for Check Dam. Ordered compliance with Land Acquisition Act if utilized.

What did the court decide?

Order survey records and enquiry on land utilization. If utilized, Deputy Commissioner to acquire land and pay compensation within six months.

Smt.G. Rukminamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7324 WP No. 100442 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 100442 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. G. RUKMINAMMA, W/O. LATE G. LOKANNA @ LOKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶7

SRI. G. LINGANNA, S/O. LATE G. LOKANNA @ LOKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶8

SMT. G. SUSHILAMMA, D/O. LATE G. LOKANNA @ LOKAPPA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶9

SMT. G. KAVITHA, D/O. LATE G. LOKANNA @ LOKAPPA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶10

SRI. G. HARISH, S/O. LATE G. LOKANNA @ LOKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶11

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶12

SMT. G. SHILPA, D/O. LATE G. LOKANNA @ LOKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, ALL R/O. MEENKERE VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI & SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR P2-P6)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT RAJ, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7324 WP No. 100442 of 2017

¶18

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BALLARI.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶20

THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING MINOR IRRIGATION, SUB-DIVISION, KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶21

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PDO, GRAM PANCHAYATI, CHIRATHAGUNDA VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2-R5)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER IN THE LIKE NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.324 MEASURING 6-ACS 92-CENTS AND SY NO.326 MEASURING 4-ACS. 00-CENTS SITUATED AT MEENKERE VILLAGE IN KUDLIGI TALUK IN VIEW OF THE FORMATION OF PUBLIC CHECK DAM/GOKATTE IN THE SAID LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ACCORDINGLY PAY APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IF NO ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS ARE ALREADY INITIATED AND/OR DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PAY APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONERS IN VIEW OF FORMATION OF PUBLIC CHECK DAM /GOKATTE IN SY.NO.324 MEASURING 6-ACS 92-CENTS AND SY.NO.326 MEASURING 4-ACS. 00-CENTS SITUATED AT MEENKERE VILLAGE IN KUDLIGI TALUK IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7324 WP No. 100442 of 2017

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are seeking mandamus against the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey No. 324 measuring 6 Acres 92 Cents and Survey No.326 measuring 4 Acres, situated at Meenkere village of Kudligi Taluk, which is utilized by the respondent-authority for formation of a Check Dam, without paying any compensation.

¶29

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and learned HCGP. Perused the records.

¶30

The reply notice issued by respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat would have a direct bearing on the petitioners’ claim. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 7 are relevant and same are culled out, which read as under:

¶31

“1. The allegations in para 1 of your legal notice that, that your client is the absolute owner and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.324 and 326 measuring 4.00 acres and 6.92 acres respectively situated at Meenkere village within the jurisdiction of Kudligi Tq, Ballari district is false. The further allegation that, the said land is derived to your client from his father and the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7324 WP No. 100442 of 2017

¶33

above said two lands were granted by the government in favour of your client's father and R.K Palaiah who is the father of R.K.Basanna is false.

¶34

It is true that, the Panchayath Development Officer, Grama-Panchayathi, Chirthagunda village constructed Gokatte in the above said lands, only to small extent. It is false to allege that, it is the only the land to your client and his family member to eak-out their lively-hood

¶35

7. It is submitted that, the villagers of Meenkere requested our client No.2 to construct a Gokatte to the stream called as 'GALERA HALLA to store water for the cattles of the village and also to in improve ground-water level. Hence, our client No.2 sanctioned to construct Gokatte to the said stream. The said stream is also running in the land bearing Sy No.324 extent 3.92 acres. The joint owner R.K.Basanna, s/o R.K.Palaiah, our client No.3, approached our client No.1 & 2 and gave his consent letter on 21.2.2011 to construct Gokatte including his land, as it is required for public purpose. At the consent and permission of the joint owner R.K.Basanna, the said Gokatte is constructed in the said land only to a small extent and completed the construction work on 18.3.2011. Your client's father was also watching the construction work all the while and he never objected for the same. Our clients have not made any illegal construction in the said lands and they made construction with the

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7324 WP No. 100442 of 2017

¶37

consent of joint owner, that too for public purpose. Your client is not entitled any reliefs, as sought in your notice.”

¶38

On examining these three paragraphs, what can be gathered is that the respondents, having utilized the private lands, are disputing the petitioner’s title over the property in question. However at paragraph 2, respondents are admitting that portions of these private lands were utilized for construction of a Check Dam. Paragraph 7 gives an indication that some of the owners of the above said survey numbers have consented vide letter dated 21.02.2011 for construction of Check Dam for public purpose. One R.K.Basanna has given his consent. It can also be gathered that the respondents have claimed that the petitioners’ father was aware of the construction of Check Dam and he never objected to the construction. Respondent No.5 asserts that the private lands are utilized after securing consent from the owners. Whether the petitioners’ father and petitioners have consented is not forthcoming from the materials. However, a private land of poor agriculturists, who are illiterate and uneducated, cannot be utilized by securing their consent. If petitioners’

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7324 WP No. 100442 of 2017

¶40

lands are utilized for public purpose, then the consequences have to follow, as it is a trite law that no citizen can be deprived of his property rights by the State and its instrumentalities without having recourse to provisions of Land Acquisition Act.

¶41

Though the petitioners have straight away approached this Court seeking a mandamus, the authorities shall consider this writ petition as a representation and secure records after notifying the petitioners and examine whether the petitioners’ lands are utilized for the purpose of construction of Check Dam and thereafter proceed to initiate appropriate proceedings.

¶42

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The writ petition is allowed in part.

¶45

ii) Respondents 2 to 5 shall hold an enquiry and ascertain as to whether the petitioners’ lands are utilized for the purpose of construction of Check Dam.

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7324 WP No. 100442 of 2017

¶47

iii) If petitioners’ lands are utilized, then the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayanagar, shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law and propose to acquire petitioners’ lands and pay compensation in accordance with law.

¶48

iv) This exercise shall be completed within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Smt.G. Rukminamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.G. Rukminamma v. the State of Karnataka

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

Gangappa S/O Parappa Navalur Vs Iravva W/O Gurunath Navalur

Peeru S/O Buddoji Kormaddi Vs Smt. Reshma W/O Hasan Belgaumkar

Savitri W/O Basappa Madarkhandi Vs Sangappa Basappa Madarkhandi

Smt.Ningawwa Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mruthunjaya S/O Nagappayya Achari Vs the State of Karnataka

Appanna Kareppa Kitroji Vs Parasharam Bahirjee Desai