Allowed

Siddawwa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/201121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners' land was taken over and used as a graveyard without acquisition proceedings. A coordinate bench had directed allotment of alternative land; the impugned endorsement refused it. The Court quashed the endorsement and directed a joint survey and allotment or compensation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 21.10.2023 quashed; directions issued for joint survey, allotment of alternative land, or compensation under Right to Fair Compensation Act.

Siddawwa and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

��

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 201121 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SIDDAWWA W/O HONNAPPA PATTANSHETTY

¶10

AGE ABOUT 68 YEARS

¶11

OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER AND AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF AT AND POST HONNUTAGI VILLAGE TQ AND DIST BIJAPUR

¶12

VIJAYAPUR 586 127.

¶13

SMT. YAMUNABAI W/O CHANNABASAPPA BAGALI

¶14

AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER AND AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF AT AND POST HONNUTAGI VILLAGE TQ AND DIST BIJAPUR

¶15

VIJAYAPUR 586 127.

¶16

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SMT. BHARATI W/O SANGAPPA GOTI AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶18

OCCUPATION: HOMEMAKER AND AGRICULTURE RESIDENT OF AT AND POST HONNUTAGI VILLAGE TQ AND DIST BIJAPUR VIJAYAPUR 586 127.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. K M GHATE,ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING VIDHAN VEEDHI,

¶23

¶24

��

¶25

VIDHAN SOUDHA,

¶26

BENGALURU 560 001.

¶27

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYPUR – 586 101.

¶28

ZILLA PANCHAYAT BY ITS CEO VIJAYPUR 586 101.

¶29

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPUR 586 101.

¶30

TAHASILDAR VIJAYAPUR VIJAYAPUR 586 101.

¶31

REVENUE ISNEPCTOR OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR VIJAYAPUR 586 101.

¶32

THE SECRETARY GARM PANCHAYAT HONNUTAGI VILLAGE TQ. AND DIST VIJAYAPURA 586 101.

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SMT. MAYA.T.R, HCGP FOR R-1, R-2, R-4 TO R-6 R-3 & R-7 SERVED)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI/ORDER/DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAJAPUR, IN FILE NO. REVENUE/RV/VIVA-19/2017-18, DATED: 21.10.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES MAY BE DIRECTED TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SY NO. 97/1A MEASURING 5 ACRES SITUTATED AT HONNUTAGI VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPUR HAVING UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRAVEYARD ALONG WITH ALL MONITORY BENEFITS, DAMAGES, INTERST AS PER LAND ACQUISITION ACT FORTH WITH.

¶36

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

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

��

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶42

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶43

“a) Issue Writ of Certiorari/order/direction, quashing the order/endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner, Vijaypur, in File No.REVENUE/RB/VIVA19/2017-18, Dated 21.10.2023 vide Annexure-A and consequently all the respondent authorities may be directed to pay the compensation of the petitioners land bearing Sy.No.97/1A measuring 5 acres situated at Honnutagi village, Tq. & Dist. Vijaypur having utilized for the purpose of graveyard along with all monetary benefits, damages, interest as per Land Acquisition Act forthwith.

¶44

b) Issue writ of mandamus/direction, directing the respondent authorities, to put the petitioners into the possession and enjoyment of their land bearing Sy.No.97/1A measuring 5 acres situated at Honnutagi village, Tq. & Dist. Vijaypur, by getting stopped the burial/cremation of dead bodies, in case, the Government is not interested in paying the compensation to the petitioners land within a reasonable time.

¶45

c) Issue any other appropriate order, as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court, including the cost of the present Writ Petition payable to the petitioner to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

¶46

¶47

��

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶49

HCGP for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 6 and perused the material on record.

¶50

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land bearing Sy.No.97/1A measuring 5 acres belonging to the petitioners was taken over by the respondents, who formed graveyard in the said land without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings nor acquiring the same by following due process of law. Further, when the petitioners made request to the respondent to give compensation or allot alternative land, the respondents took a decision to allot alternative land in Sy.No.84 to an extent of 5 acres in view of the aforesaid land in Sy.No.97/1A measuring 5 acres taken over from the petitioners and utilised for the purpose of graveyard without acquisition proceedings or following due process of law. Since repeated representations of the petitioners to consider allotment of alternative land was not complied with by the respondents, petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.201477/2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide

¶51

��

¶52

¶53

final order dated 27.06.2023, pursuant to which respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order directing allotment of alternative land in Sy.No.276 measuring 5 acres instead of Sy.No.84 of Honnutagi Village. Aggrieved by the impugned communication at Annexure-A dated 21.10.2023, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite a categorical/definite/specific finding recorded by this Court that the respondents has identified alternative land at Sy.No.84 measuring 5 acres issuing specific directions to the respondents to allot alternative land in an extent of 5 acres, failing which the respondents shall allot some other land in some other area fixing the same price, the respondents have rejected the request for allotment of 5 acres in Sy.No.84 by assigning untenable reasons and as such, the impugned communication deserves to be set aside and necessary directions be issued to the respondents to allot land in Sy.No.84 to an extent of 5 acres in favour of the petitioners.

¶55

In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention not only to the impugned communication, in

¶56

��

¶57

¶58

order to point out that the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 that the land in Sy.No.84 was being used for different purpose is false and in reality 5 acres of land in Sy.No.84 is actually available for allotment for grant in favour of the petitioners. It is also submitted that other reasons assigned in the impugned communication as regards value of Sy.No.84 is not only incorrect, but contrary to the order passed by this Court.

¶59

Per contra, learned HCGP would support the impugned communication and submit that since the value of the land in Sy.No.84 was much higher than the land of the petitioners coupled with the fact that no land is actually available in Sy.No.84, in which houses are already been built, the impugned communication does not warrant interference by this Court and the writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶60

Before adverting to rival submissions, it would be profitable to extract the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.201477/2023 dated 27.06.2023, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:

��

��

�� !�� "�� #��$��

�� %��&��'�� (��)�

*�+�,��(��-.��"� ��/�0�"��1�� 2��34��5��6�+�� 2��2��2��2��34��5��6�7��+�� (��'��#��2�� &"�.��.��/�0�"�� 34��5��68+��1��"��"�� -� �� "�� !�� .��9�� "��:�-�� /��29�� "��;$-�4��(��(�&��<��"�� "��&"��&��/��&�� &��"��

¶67

�+�%��(��-�� "��!��.�� (��2��(��'�� -�.��"��/�0�"�� 0��*�

¶68

¶69

��

¶70

#� %��(�� 7��'��"��(�� "��;$-�4��9�� %��(��"�� 1��<��(��"�� &��,��&��'�� =�� &�� 6��'�� 1��'��"�� (��(��'�� >��2$#2:-�2�9�(�� 2��2��2�9��%�� &"�� &"��"�� 2$�2$��22��(��(�� (��'�� &��1��"�� (�� '� �� "�� .�� &"� �� .��"� �� /�0�"��!��22�222-6�� (��(�� &"�� &��1��"�� "��:��"��(�� (��5��9��(��&�� (��&��'�� &��'�� (��

¶71

�� %��&�� "�� &��(�� %��"��!��22��'��(��

¶72

��

¶73

¶74

�� &��&�� "��:�� (�� &�� 5��9�� &�� ,��(�� &��(��4��,��(��)�

¶75

��

¶76

�� %��(��

¶77

�� 4�� "��5�� &��(�� &��"��"�� "� ��&�� "��:��

¶78

�� %��&��&��(�� "��?�

¶79

8. As is clear from the aforesaid order passed by this

¶80

Court in the said petition filed by the petitioners herein, positive directions have been issued to the respondents to allot 5 acres of land in sy.No.84 in favour of the petitioners; the said order further directs that it is only in the event that no land is available in Sy.No.84 that the respondents should allot alternative land in a similarly situated area fixing same price only if such a land is not

¶81

10 - ��

¶82

available in Sy.No.84. As stated supra, in view of the rival contentions/submissions urged by both sides as regards availability/non-availability of land in sy.No.84, it would be just and appropriate to set aside the impugned communication directing the respondents to conduct joint survey in the presence of the petitioners, identify and obtain a report as regards availability of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.84 for the purpose of allotment in favour of the petitioners. It is also necessary to issue further directions to the effect that in the event such land is not available in sy.No.84, the respondents would allot alternative land in the same vicinity/area or initiate proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation Act and pay compensation in favour of the petitioners for taking over and utilizing Sy.No.97/1A without acquisition proceedings and without following due process of law.

¶83

In the result, I pass the following:

¶84

ORDER

¶85

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶86

(ii) The impugned communication at Annexure-A dated 21.10.2023 is hereby quashed.

¶87

(iii) The following directions are issued to the respondents:

¶88

11 -

¶89

��

¶90

a) The respondents are directed to conduct joint survey in the presence of the petitioners for the purpose of identifying availability of land in Sy.No.84 to an extent of 5 acres to be allotted/granted in favour of the petitioners.

¶91

b) The said survey shall be conducted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶92

c) In the event said land is available as per the joint inspection report, the respondents shall allot the said available land in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of obtaining the joint survey/inspection report.

¶93

d) In the event, no such land is available in Sy.No.84 is concerned, respondents shall allot alternative land in the same area/vicinity as Sy.No.84 in favour of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of obtaining the report.

¶94

12 - ��

¶95

e) In the event no such alternative land other than Sy.No.84 is also not available for allotment, the respondent shall take necessary steps to initiate proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, and pay compensation to the peititoner within a period of six months from the date of obtaining the report.

¶96

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶97

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

¶98

BMC

Siddawwa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddawwa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.

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

Beerappa S/O Shankareppa Halli Vs Laxman and Ors.

Shankreppa Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Gurulingappa Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Neellamma Vs the District Commissioner and Ors.

Vishwanath Reddy and Anr. Vs the State and Ors.

Syed Shamas and Anr. Vs Basavaraj and Ors.