Disposed

Smt. Mangamma v. the Principal Secretary

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2024WP/1821/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that such notices cannot be quashed under Article 226 but directed petitioners to file a representation for correction regarding the discrepancy in land extent within two weeks, with authorities to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file representation within two weeks for authorities to correct discrepancy in awarded land extent within three months.

Smt. Mangamma Vs the Principal Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:45192 WP No. 1821 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 1821 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MANGAMMA D/O. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶9

SMT. ROOPAMMA D/O. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶10

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT KALLANDUR VILLAGE, BEGLI HOSAHALLI POST, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DIST. 563 101.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, KIDB,

¶16

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU 530 068.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KANIJA BHAVAN, KIDB, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:45192 WP No. 1821 of 2019

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH B., AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. C.N. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD NOTICE DATED 12.12.2018 ISSUD UNDER SEC.12(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN RESPECT OF 27 GUNTAS, AND DIRECT THEM TO PAY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT OF FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY ACT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PAY RS.9,10,000/- PER GUNTA OF LAND AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the

¶29

award notice dated 12.12.2018 (Annexure-E) issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'L.A.' Act).

¶30

It is contended by Sri.Rajashekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondent authorities while computing compensation insofar as the land acquisition is concerned ought to have considered the Joint Resolution

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45192 WP No. 1821 of 2019

¶32

passed by the respondent-authorities as per Annexure-D and also it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that though an extent of 26 guntas as per Annexure-C has been acquired by the respondent-authorities, the award notice under Section 12(2) of L.A. Act has been issued insofar as only 23 guntas. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶33

Per contra, Sri.Ravindranath, learned AGA submitted that petitioners cannot assail the award notice issued under Section 12(2) of L.A. Act produced at Annexure-E.

¶34

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find force in the submission made by the learned AGA that the award notice issued under Section 12(2) of the L.A. Act cannot be questioned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, taking into consideration that the land to an extent of 26 guntas in Sy.No.4/3 belonging to the petitioners has been notified as per Annexure-C, however, the award notice has been made insofar as 23 guntas is concerned. To that extent, I find force in the

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:45192 WP No. 1821 of 2019

¶36

submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶37

Accordingly, it is open for the petitioners to approach the respondent-authorities by making a representation by bringing to the notice of the respondentauthorities about the lacuna in the award notice said to have been issued on 12.12.2018. If such application is made by the petitioners within two weeks from the of receipt of this order, the respondent-authorities shall take decision in the matter in accordance with law within outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of such representation that may be made by the petitioners in terms of the order passed by this Court.

¶38

With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of .

¶39

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶40

GPG

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt. Mangamma v. the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mangamma v. the Principal Secretary

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 Tejraj Gulecha Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Mohammed Ayub Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Mr R N Narasimha Murthy (Major)

Reddy Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yashoda Veeramayanna Vs Karnataka Industrial Area

Sri P Vipranarayana Vs the Commissioner