Allowed

Vital Wealth Catalyst and Logistics LLP v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WP/13804/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Planning authority demanded gratuitous relinquishment of land as a condition for sanctioning a single plot layout plan. The High Court held the State cannot take property except by due process with compensation, quashed the endorsement imposing the condition, and directed approval of the plan without insisting on free surrender.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 01.04.2024 quashed; respondent No.2 directed to approve the plan without insisting on free relinquishment; liberty to acquire land on payment of compensation.

Vital Wealth Catalyst and Logistics LLP Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 13804 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VITAL WEALTH CATALYST AND LOGISTICS LLP A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 25/12, CANAL ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI - 600010 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MEGH SAKARIYA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, SRI NISHANK SAKARIYA, S/O NARENDRA SAKARIYA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by R DEEPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SANDEEP LAHIRI & DEEPIKA JOSHI, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDINGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU 562123

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶18

GOLLAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT GOLLAHALLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA 562123 REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶19

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, T B MINE ROAD, SADASHIVNAGAR, NELAMANGALA TOWN, NELAMANGALA 562123

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. H. K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, ADV. FOR R2 SRI. M. S. DEVARAJU, ADV. FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT / COMMUNICATION DATED 01/04/2024 ISSUED BY THE R2 BEARING NO. NEYOPRA/LAO 05/2022-23 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A).

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to

¶27

quash the Endorsement/Communication dated 01.04.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-A.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶29

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶30

The petitioner is the absolute owner of the converted undeveloped dry land bearing Sy.No.108/38, E-khatha No.150300701901120298, Property No.232/108/38B within the revenue jurisdiction of Gollahalli Gram Panchayat measuring 1 acre 05 guntas or 4,552.71 square meters. It is contended that, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 authority with an application for sanction of a 'single plot' layout plan on 04.08.2022 and the said authority issued a communication or demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the requisite fees and other related cess charges. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid the requisite charges as required under law to respondent No.2. The respondent authority has demanded for relinquishment of 267.58 Sq. Mts., of land from the aforementioned lands by the petitioner for the purpose of widening of road. The petitioner has duly executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of respondent No.3. It is contended that respondent No.2 issued an endorsement imposing condition that unless a

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶32

Relinquishment Deed is executed gratuitously in respect of a portion of the property in question i.e., 1205.43 sq. mtrs., in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purpose of widening of road and intermediate ring road respectively. Despite paying requisite fees for plan approval and relinquishing 267.58 sq. mtrs. for road widening, the respondent No.2 issued another demand notice asking for relinquishment. The said action is contrary to well established principles of law. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶34

also the learned counsel of the respondents.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶36

the condition imposed by the respondents is contrary to Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He submits that if at all the respondents intend to widen the road, they have to acquire the property of the petitioner. The respondents have not initiated the acquisition proceedings and forced

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶38

the petitioner to relinquish the rights in respect of a portion of the property that belongs to the petitioner. He also submits that in view of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of DR. ARUN KUMA B.C., VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.NOS.9408/2020 C/W W.P.NOS.14095/2021, 14975/2021, 19736/2021 & 19737/2021 , the writ petition may be disposed off in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondents submits

¶40

that the writ petition may be disposed off in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions.

¶41

Heard and perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

It is not in dispute that, the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 with an application for sanction of a single plot layout plan on 04.08.2022 and

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶44

respondent No.2 issued a communication/demand notice. While issuing the communication of sanction, respondent No.2 has imposed a condition that the petitioner must relinquish all rights over a portion of his site to the extent of 267.58 sq.mtrs. and must execute a relinquishment deed. If at all if the respondents intending to widening the road, they have to initiate the acquisition proceedings. The State cannot dispossess a citizen from his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law and it cannot dispossess the citizen not by imposing impugned condition. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300A, can be inferred in that to forcible dispossession of a person from his private property by the State, without following the due process of law, would be violative of a human rights, as also the constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HINDUSTAN

¶45

PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., VS. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENAI & ORS. reported in (2005)7 SCC 627 held that having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶48

of the Constitution of India, the State in exercise of its power of 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same, but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.

¶49

Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents

¶50

have not acquired the property of the petitioner and are insisting the petitioner to relinquish its rights in the portion

¶51

of the property that belongs to the petitioner. The respondents have no right to impose such a condition while granting a sanctioned plan. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in identical matters, quashed the impugned conditions. I concur with the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions.

¶52

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:33930 WP No. 13804 of 2024

¶57

ii. Endorsement dated 01.04.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-A is quashed.

¶58

iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and approve the plan submitted for approval by the petitioner without insisting for such surrender free of cost.

¶59

iv. Liberty is however reserved to the respondents to acquire the property by making payment of compensation as per applicable law.

¶60

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶61

SSB

Vital Wealth Catalyst and Logistics LLP v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vital Wealth Catalyst and Logistics LLP v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kenchappa Vs Sri Onkarappa

Ms Kayla Kathleen Kumar Vs Assistant Revenue Officer (Aro)

Sri. T. Suresh Kumar Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Gnananandhan Vs Dhruthi Infra Projects Limited

S. Ramakrishna Rai Vs Smt.Kasturi

Sri Abdul Saleem Vs the Commissioner