Allowed

Virupaxappa S/O Virupaxappa v. the Secretary, the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/106118/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the State and Deputy Commissioner to consider a representation regarding compensation for land used for road widening. The Court directed the authorities to consider the representation and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus is issued directing Respondent No. 1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.8.2023 and pass suitable orders within four weeks.

Virupaxappa S/O Virupaxappa Vs the Secretary, the State… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16349 WP No. 106118 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 106118 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. VIRUPAXAPPA, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUNJALLI ONI, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL, PIN: 583227.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI SANJAY CHANAL, ADVOCATE.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE SECRETARY, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, PUBLIC, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, D.C. OFFICE, KOPPAL-583231.

¶18

(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP.)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 APPROPRIATE WRIT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXUREB AND B1 DATED 24/08/2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,.

¶21

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

¶22

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16349 WP No. 106118 of 2024

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondents.

¶26

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.297/1/1 measuring 01 acre 14 guntas, situated within the limits of Gangavati Taluk. On 10.03.2005, the State Government issued a notification for widening and development of the district road from Gangavati to Siddikeri Basavapattana road. In the process of widening of the road, land of petitioner was utilized to an extent of 01 acre 14 guntas. The Survey Department is said to have conducted survey and marked the area of utilization to be 11 guntas. In view of the property of the petitioner having been utilised without paying any compensation, the petitioner filed a suit for damages, which came to be decreed and accordingly the petitioner made a representation to the respondent authorities on 24.08.2023 to pay the compensation in accordance to the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16349 WP No. 106118 of 2024

¶28

order passed by the trial Court. The same has not been considered. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

3. Learned HCGP representing the State submits that the representation so made by the petitioner would be considered if reasonable time is granted. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

i) The petition is allowed.

¶32

ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the

¶33

respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.8.2023, as per Annexure B and B1 and pass suitable orders in accordance with law, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶34

order.

¶35

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶36

MRK CT-MCK

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Virupaxappa S/O Virupaxappa v. the Secretary, the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virupaxappa S/O Virupaxappa v. the Secretary, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Talari Ambamma W/O Late Erayya Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shivaraj S/O Sangappa Mali Vs the Principal Secretary

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Seva Samiti (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sanjay W/O Yashwant Suntakar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Shivashakathi Recreation Club -R- Vs the State of Karnataka

Union Bank of India Vs State of Karnataka