Disposed

Smt.H.S.Suma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2024WP/1710/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Site purchasers were directed to stop construction over a boundary dispute with the irrigation authority regarding notified land. The court disposed of the petition directing a joint survey by the ADLR with notice to all stakeholders, reserving liberty if the survey is inconclusive or adverse.

What did the court decide?

ADLR directed to notify stakeholders and conduct joint survey of Sy.Nos.17 and 19, Somanakuppe village, within four months.

Smt.H.S.Suma Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1710 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT.H.S.SUMA W/O G.N.SATHISH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS AREHALLI VILLAGE, SUNNADAHALLI POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577245.

¶7

G.M. SHIVAKUMAR S/O G. MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS SRI.MARULASIDDESWARA NILAYA 100 FEET ROAD, VINOBANAGARA EXTENTION SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201.

¶8

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SHASHIKUMAR.R S/O N. RAJA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT, DIVYASRI NILAYA, BEHIND THE ANTHARAGATTAMMA TEMPLE, KASHIPURA LAYOUT, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201.

¶10

P. PARAMESH S/O PANDURANGA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT, NIDHIGE, WARD NO. 13, MALAVAGOPPA CHANAL AREA,

¶11

¶12

NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶13

SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201.

¶14

M.SANTHOSH S/O MOHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT. NISARGA KASHIPURA MAIN ROAD, RENUKAMBA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577201.

¶15

N.R.NAVEEN KUMAR S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO. N.M AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT, TUKKALA, TANKABAILU VILLAGE, TENGINAKOPPA POST, KASABA HOBLI, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577432.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR G H.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA URBEN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 100 FEET ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶20

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA SLUM CLEARANCE BOARD NO.4^TH SUB-DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶21

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER UPPER THUNGA PROJECT NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE, B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶24

AMARENDRA KIREETE S/O LATE, RATHNAKARA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT, SIR.M.V. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201.

¶25

CHIEF ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMINTHA UPPER THUNGA PROJECT, SAGAR ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R3; SRI. K.N. DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-ISSUE THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R1 SHIVAMOGGA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 12/10/2020, 11/12/2020, 16/07/2021, 27/12/2021 AND 13/09/2022, VIDE ANNEXUE- R, S, T, V AND W THEREBY TO VERIFY THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE R4 AND SOLVE THE SAME.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have purchased 6 sites which are part of a layout approved by the first respondent at the fourth respondent's instance in the lands in Sy.Nos.17 and 19 of Somanakuppe village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga District. It is not in dispute that the first respondent has accorded sanction for formation of layout in an extent of 4 acres 5 guntas in these two survey numbers and that the fourth respondent has transferred the corresponding six sites in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners’ cause, as seen from the records, is because they have been directed to stop construction with the fifth respondent - Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha - asserting that their properties [ sites ] come within the lands notified and transferred for public use.

¶35

There is some controversy about the

¶36

extents notified and transferred in favour of the fifth respondent. However, the Assistant Director for Land

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶38

Records, Shivamogga Taluk, Shivamogga, has addressed the Communication dated 08.10.2021 [ Annexure-Q ] to the first respondent requesting for a joint survey emphasizing that though certain notices

¶39

are issued for a joint survey, such proceedings have been inconclusive.

¶40

Sri G. H. Ravikumar, the learned counsel

¶41

for the petitioners, Sri K.N. Dayalu, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, and Sri B.R. Prashanth, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, as also Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the third respondent, are heard for disposal of the petition. Sri.G. H. Ravikumar submits that this Court must, in the light of the Communication dated 08.10.2021, dispose of the petition directing a joint inspection. Sri.B.R.Prashanth does not oppose this request, but emphasizes that there must be due notice of the survey to the fifth respondent. Sri K.N.Dayalu

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶44

submits that the petition as against the fourth respondent is not maintainable because he has already transferred the sites developed in these survey numbers in favour of different purchasers, including the petitioners.

¶45

This Court must observe for the present, the controversy lies within a narrow compass and is because the first respondent has taken no initiative to complete the joint survey. The justification offered is that this property has been transferred to the second respondent from whom the fourth respondent has purchased the lands. The merits of this justification apart, if the petitioners, who have title deeds in their favour for the corresponding sites, have been asked to stop the construction because of a dispute over the boundaries between the properties claimed by the fifth respondent and developed by the fourth respondent, there must be a survey at the earliest and with due notice not just to the petitioners

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶48

and fifth respondent but also to the first and fourth respondents.

¶49

5. As such, this Court is of the considered

¶50

view that the jurisdictional ADLR must be directed to issue notice intimating the date for the joint survey of the concerned lands so that all the stakeholders get opportunity and the boundaries are demarcated to ensure that the petitioners are not left in a lurch with the dispute over the identity hanging in suspension forever. This Court must observe that if this survey is inconclusive or is against the petitioners, they will be at liberty to avail their remedy under law. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

[A] The petition stands disposed of

¶53

directing the jurisdictional ADLR to notify the petitioners and respondents and every other stakeholders in the lands in Sy.Nos.17 and 19 of Somanakuppe village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:46189 WP No. 1710 of 2023

¶56

[B] The petitioners are reserved with liberty

¶57

to file a certified copy of this order with the jurisdictional ADLR within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶58

[C] The Jurisdictional ADLR shall ensure

¶59

that the notice is issued to all the stakeholders, and that survey is concluded within four [4] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶60

[D] It is needless to observe that the parties

¶61

to whom the notice is issued in terms of this order will be at liberty to file all the documents to substantiate their claims.

¶62

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

SA ct:sr

Smt.H.S.Suma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.H.S.Suma v. the Commissioner

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

Sri S M Ramesh Vs the Chief Executioe Officer

Sri H.B. Basavaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Doddamuniyappa Vs Zilla Panchayat

M/S Polisetty Somasundaram Vs the Commissioner

The Chief General Manager Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinay B N Vs the Commissioner