Disposed

M. Sathyanarayana v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024WP/1940/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought re-determination of compensation for their acquired land under Section 28(A)(1) of the Land Acquisition Act; the Special LAO undertook to consider the request in accordance with law within four months, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider the petitioners' Section 28(A)(1) re-determination request and pass appropriate orders within four months.

M. Sathyanarayana Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:18977 WP No. 1940 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.1940 OF 2024 (LA-UDA)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶7

SHAKUNTALA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶8

M. NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶9

M. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

M. MAHESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONERS NO.1, 3 AND 5 ARE S/O LATE S. MAHADEVU @ MAHADEVAIAH

¶13

PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 4 ARE D/O. LATE S. MAHADEVU @ MAHADEVAIAH

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT NO.500 6TH CROSS, KESARE 3RD STAGE, MYSURU-570 007.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI SANDESH P. NADIGERE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:18977 WP No. 1940 of 2024

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MUDA), J.L.B ROAD MYSURU - 570 005.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION L.A.Q.NO.41/1991-92 DATED 16.12.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 28(A)(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND MAKE AN AWARD AND THEREBY RE-DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS FOR THEIR ACQUIRED LAND OF 2 ACRES 6½ GUNTAS IN SY.NO.468 OF KESARE VILLAGE, MYSORE TALUK ALONG WITH THE KHARAB LAND THEREIN ON THE BASIS OF THE AWARD OF THE COURT MADE IN THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.10.2016 PASSED IN L.A.C. NO.316/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM., MYSURU, WITH STATUTORY BENEFITS THERETO, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:18977 WP No. 1940 of 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

It is submitted that the land of the petitioners measuring about 2 acres 6-1/2 guntas in Sy.No.468 of Kesare Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru Taluk has been acquired by the respondent. The petitioners have made a request to the respondent to re-determine the compensation amount payable to them under Section 28(A) (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. As the same has not been considered, the present writ petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if four months time is granted, the request of the petitioners would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed.

¶30

Submission is placed on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners is agreeable for the same. Hence, the following:-

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:18977 WP No. 1940 of 2024

¶36

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶37

ii. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of .

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M. Sathyanarayana v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Sathyanarayana v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

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 Gangahanumaiah M Vs Sri D Shankarappa

Sri Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Vs Smt Kalpana Palegar

Smt. Rukmini Bai, Vs Sri Bhagavathi Devaru

Sri. Gangarangegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishnappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanjinappa Vs the State of Karnataka