Dismissed

Sathyadhana Madvachar Malagi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2024WP/110213/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order dismissing their claim for land acquisition compensation. Despite a preliminary notification, the final notice excluded their land, and a fresh survey confirmed they did not acquire it, leading the court to dismiss the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and passing of an award for compensation was dismissed.

Sathyadhana Madvachar Malagi Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.110213/2016(LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SATHYADHANA MADVACHAR MALAGI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST.

¶9

USHA W/O. SATHYADHANA MALAGI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF BADAMI ROAD, NEAR OLD APMC, BAGALKOT.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI MANJUNATH KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.

¶14

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2024.04.10 15:22:27 +0530

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOT.

¶17

CHIEF ENGINEER BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI G.K.HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.04.2014 BEARING NO.LAQ/SR/19/9293/22 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE –K. MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PASS APPROPRIATE

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶22

AWARD, AWARDING SUITABLE COMPENSATION TO AN EXTENT OF 5 ACRES OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.156/1B/1 SITUATED AT GADDANKERI VILLAGE, KALADAGLI HOBLI, BAGALKOT AT THE RATE OF RS.5 LAKH PER ACRE TREATING THE SAID LANDS AS N A POTENTIAL, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE FORMALITY OF THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDING AND COMPLETE IT BY PASSING AN AWARD UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners approached this court seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 02.04.2014 passed by respondent No.2 produced as per Annexure-K and also to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pass appropriate award, awarding suitable compensation in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Manjunath Karigannavar for the petitioners, learned counsel Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners purchased 5 acres of land in

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶29

Sy.No.156/1B/1 situated at Gaddankeri village, Kaladagi Hobli, Bagalkot District under registered sale deed dated 19.09.1992 produced as per Annexure-A. Accordingly, the names of the petitioners were mutated in respect of the said land in the record of rights. Subsequently, preliminary notification as per Annexure-C dated 30.11.1992 was issued proposing to acquire 5 acres of land belonging to the petitioners. Later, final notification was issued as per Annexure-D dated 04.10.1996. In spite of that, no award was passed and no compensation was awarded in favour of the petitioners. Several representations were submitted

¶30

to the respondents seeking passing of the award and payment of compensation. Since the representations were not considered, W.P.Nop.61368/2010 was came to be filed before this court. The said writ petition was came to be allowed vide order dated 08.10.2013 as per Annexure-G, directing the respondents to consider the representations. In spite of that, representations were not considered. In the meantime, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order stating that 5 acres of land belonging to the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶32

petitioners was not acquired by the respondents and therefore, there is no question of paying compensation. The said order is being challenged before this court.

¶33

Learned counsel contended that while passing the final notification as per Annexure-D, the Land Acquisition Officer has made it clear that passing of the award in respect of several lands including the land belonging to the petitioners, is in progress. The said final notification is dated 04.10.1996 and till date, no award is passed, nor compensation is determined. The direction issued by this court is also not followed by the respondents. The impugned order was came to be passed without any merits.

¶34

Learned counsel submitted that as per the

¶35

directions of this court, fresh survey was conducted and the survey report is submitted before this court, stating that said land was not acquired by the respondents. When the preliminary and final notifications are already issued acquiring the land in question, respondents could not have

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶37

escaped from the responsibility of passing the award and paying compensation. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that even though preliminary notification was issued proposing to acquire 5 acres of land belonging to the petitioners, while publishing final notification, it is specifically stated that several survey numbers, including Sy.No.156/1B/1 belonging to the petitioners were dropped from the proposal for acquisition. Annexure-D dated 04.10.1996 is very clear in that regard. In spite of that petitioners have approached this court seeking to consider the representations. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed the detailed order as per Annexure-K, stating that land in question was never acquired nor utilized for the purpose of constructing the water tank. Therefore, there is no question of passing any award and paying compensation to the petitioners. No iota of evidence is placed before this court to show that land in

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶40

question was either acquired or utilized by the

¶41

respondents.

¶42

Learned counsel submitted that as per the

¶43

directions of this court, a fresh survey was conducted and the survey report along with annexures are produced before this court. The surveyor who conducted survey specifically stated that the land shown by the petitioners at the time of survey is not the subject matter of the acquisition. Thus, the contention taken by the respondents is supported by the survey sketch. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

8. Learned HCGP supporting the contentions taken

¶45

by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Perused the material on record.

¶47

Even though preliminary notification was issued

¶48

as per Annexure-C dated 30.11.1992 proposing to acquire

¶49

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶50

5 acres of land belonging to the petitioners, the final notification was notified on 04.10.1996 as per Annexure-D. This notification discloses that Land Acquisition Officer has dropped 5 acres of land belonging to the petitioners from the proposed acquisition. Even though it is stated that passing of award is in progress, the same is to be related to the properties which are subject matter of the acquisition and not to the property of the petitioners. Petitioners submitted several representations and even this court directed the respondents to consider the representations as per Annexure-G.

¶51

During the pendency of the writ petition before this court, to find out the truth or otherwise of the contention taken by the petitioner, a fresh survey was ordered to be conducted. Accordingly, survey was conducted and survey report is produced by the learned HCGP. Even as per the said survey report, the land shown

¶52

by the petitioners was not the subject matter of the acquisition nor the said land was utilized for the purpose

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 110213 of 2016

¶54

for which the preliminary notification was issued. Under such circumstances, except preliminary notification, there is absolutely no material to contend that land belonging to the petitioners was either acquired or utilized for the purpose for which the acquisition proceedings were initiated. Hence, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition.

¶55

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

MBS/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sathyadhana Madvachar Malagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyadhana Madvachar Malagi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kwality Metals Vs the Branch Manager

Smt. Shanta Alias Bhagirathi W/O Hanumant Kamble Vs Parvati Alias Chandra W/O Irappa Kamble (Since Dead Represented by Her Lrs)

Shri.Ashish S/O. Ratnakar Hattangadi Vs Smt.Vinata W/O. Ashish Hattangadi

Sri. S. Gopala Reddy S/O S. Venkata Reddy Vs the Sub Registrar

Vijalaxmi W/O Late Suresh Jituri Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri K Umapathi S/O K Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka