Allowed

Sri.Ayubkhan Akbarkhan Pathan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2024WP/103590/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging unauthorized utilization of unacquired land, the High Court observed that the right to property remains a valuable constitutional right. The Court allowed the petition and directed the authority to consider the petitioner's representations regarding excess land usage within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Respondent No.2 directed to consider petitioner's representations and complete the exercise within three months.

Sri.Ayubkhan Akbarkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9494 WP No. 103590 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 103590 OF 2017 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. AUBKHAN AKBARKHAN PATHAN, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 489, RAGHUNATH PETH, ANAGOL, BELAGAVI AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. D. RAVIKUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKAS SOUDH BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶14

Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: High Court ofKarnataka, Dharwad BenchDate: 2024.07.19 12:21:58+0530

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELAGAVI, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

THE CITY SURVEY OFFICER, BELAGAVI, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1, R3 & R5; SRI. M.A. HULYAL, ADV. FOR R2; SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADV. FOR R4 )

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9494 WP No. 103590 of 2017

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE SECOND AND FOURTH RESPONDENT, TO RESTORE THE POSSESSION AND LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER IN AND OVER THE SAID LAND I.E. UN ACQUIRED LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 03 GUNTHAS IN S.NO.101 ANGOL, BELAGAVI; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO SHOW THE NAME OF THE OWNERS OF THE S.NO.101 OF ANAGOL, BELAGAVI IN RESPECT OF UN ACQUIRED EXTENT MEASURING 1 ACRE 03 GUNTHAS; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE ILLEGALLY FORMED GARDEN IN AND OVER THE UN ACQUIRED PORTION OF S.NO.101 OF ANAGOL, BELAGAVI AND HANDOVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Captioned petition is filed by the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in utilizing additional extent of land measuring 01 Acre 31 Guntas, while the total extent of this land measures 01 Acre 31 Guntas. The petitioner contends that only 28 Guntas of land was acquired and compensation is paid. However, the respondent-authorities, while implementing the project, have utilized the entire extent and therefore representations are submitted by the petitioner as per Annexures-A, L, L1 and L2.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9494 WP No. 103590 of 2017

¶27

Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instruction, submits that respondent No.2 is willing to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶28

The records reveal that only 28 guntas of land is acquired. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the right to property though not a fundamental right is a constitutional right protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Soon after the fundamental right to property was abolished, the Supreme Court recognized the value of the right to property as a fundamental right in Bhim Singh v. Union of India¹ . In the absence of this fundamental right to property, it relied on the second Fundamental Right of Property, namely the idea of reasonableness under Article 14, to invalidate certain provisions of the urban land ceiling legislation. Though the right to property is not a fundamental right, it is a valuable constitutional right, according to the Supreme Court in the case of B. K.

¶30

1 19 (1981) DLT 446

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9494 WP No. 103590 of 2017

¶33

Ravichandra v. Union of India² , which ordered the

¶34

Centre to return the land to its owners. The Supreme Court’s decisions and the history of the right to property reveal that, while its primacy as a fundamental right has been questioned, it is nonetheless protected by the rule of law. This court’s expanding jurisprudence also demonstrates that it is a valuable right that guarantees basic liberties and economic liberty. Article 300-A’s wording is crucial, and its resemblance to Articles 21 and 265 cannot be overlooked-they are, after all, a guarantee of the supremacy of the rule of law. In a more recent case of Bajranga v. State of Madhya Pradesh³ , “right to property is still a constitutional right under article 300-A of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court has ruled in a case where the government took ownership of surplus land even though there was none. The deprivation of a right can only be done in conformity with the legal procedure.”

¶35

The Courts have also acknowledged the State’s interference in the citizen’s right to property. It was held

¶36

in K. A. Ravindran v. The District Collector, Vellore

¶37

2 AIR OnLine 2020 SC 857

¶38

3 AIR 2021 SC 541

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9494 WP No. 103590 of 2017

¶40

District⁴ that the government has no authority to interfere with a citizen’s right to property unless it is done in compliance with the law which was later on reiterated in

¶41

Jayalakshmi and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu⁵ . Recently, the Madras High Court made a noteworthy statement, saying that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the Right to Property has a tight relationship with the Right to Life.

¶42

The Apex Court in Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachala Pradesh and others⁶ observed that the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A, can be inferred in that Article. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution.

¶43

4 W.P.No.19428/2020 (D.D.06.01.2021)

¶44

5 W.P.No.181/2021 D.D.17.02.2021

¶45

6 2020 (2) SCC 569

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9494 WP No. 103590 of 2017

¶48

If the state instrumentalities utilize a private property they

¶49

are bound to compensate the citizens in the light of judgments cited supra. In view of the above, this Court passes the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶52

ii) Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner vide Annexures-A, L, L1 and L2.

¶53

iii) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶54

iv) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

YAN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

Sri.Ayubkhan Akbarkhan Pathan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Ayubkhan Akbarkhan Pathan 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Laxmi Narayan Traders Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mallikarjun Cotton Company Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bharati Mobile lLTD., Vs Shri P Venkatramana Shet S/O Late Panduranga Shet

M/S Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Minor B Mukesh S/O Late Babu Lal

Smt. Chandrawwa W/O Annayya Saidapurmath Vs Chandrappa S/O Mallappa Magadum

M/S.M.G.Kalamani and Brothers, Vs the State of Karnataka