Allowed

Captain B v. Subbanna v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024WP/21882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed revenue authorities to determine and finalize compensation payable to petitioners for annihilated Inam lands and lands granted to tenants. The court held the authorities' six-decade delay constituted gross negligence and issued a two-month deadline for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed Deputy Commissioner to determine compensation under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1954, within three months. Directed Tahsildar to finalize compensation under Section 47 of the KLR Act, 1961, wit

Captain B v Subbanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 21882 OF 2024 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . CAPTAIN B.V. SUBBANNA S/O LATE DR. B. S. VENKATASHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/AT NO. 1/7, MOUNT ROAD JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK BANGALORE-560 011.

¶8

2 . SRI. B. S. VISWANATH S/O. LATE DR. B. S. VENKATASHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT NO. 78/1, GOVINDAPPA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 011.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

¶14

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.

¶15

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN 2ND FLOOR, K.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 009.

¶16

4 . THE SPECIAL THASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK YALAHANKA UPANAGAR BANGALORE.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FIX AND PAY THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND WHICH HAVE VESTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA (PERSONAL AND MISCELLANEOUS) INAMS ABOLITION ACT, 1954, AND ALSO UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961, ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE PREVAILING BANK RATES AT WHICH THE LOANS WERE BEING LENT BY THE NATIONALIZED BANKS, AND ALSO TO PAY EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AT SUCH SUMS AT THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT, ALLOW THIS WP WITH COSTS.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.09.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

¶23

C.A.V. ORDER

¶24

This captioned petition is filed seeking a mandamus against respondents to determine the compensation payable to the present petitioners whose ancestors were held to be Inamdhar of the petition land.

¶25

Heard the counsel for petitioners and learned

¶26

AGA.

¶27

The petitioners, being aggrieved by the

¶28

prolonged inaction of the respondents, seek appropriate directions for settlement of compensation, which is payable under the provisions of both Section 47 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "KLR Act, 1961") and Section 17(1) of the Mysuru (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1954"). It is contended that the petitioners, being Inamdhars, are entitled to compensation following the abolition of Inam lands. The failure of the

¶29

¶30

respondents, including the Deputy Commissioner and Tahsildar, to discharge their statutory obligations has resulted in undue hardship and prolonged deprivation of their rights.

¶31

The petitioners assert that the land in question was Inam land, which, following the abolition of Inams, became subject to the compensation determination process under the Act, 1954. They submit that despite the lapse of several decades, no compensation has been determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1954. Additionally, the tenants of the Inam land had filed Form No. 7 before the Land Tribunal under the KLR Act, 1961, seeking occupancy rights. Upon grant of these occupancy rights to the tenants, the petitioners’ rights as Inamdhars were extinguished, entitling them to compensation under Section 47 of the KLR Act, 1961.

¶32

¶33

Upon review of the records and submissions, this

¶34

Court is compelled to note with great concern the inordinate delay and negligence on the part of the respondents, particularly the Deputy Commissioner and the Tahsildar. Despite the provisional order under the Act, 1954 (Annexure-B), which evidences the loss of lands by the petitioners as early as 1960, there has been a complete failure on the part of the competent authorities to determine and disburse the compensation due to the petitioners.

¶35

In the present matter, Section 17(1) of the Act, 1954 imposes a clear statutory obligation on the Deputy Commissioner to determine compensation for the lands affected by the abolition of Inams. Similarly, Section 47 of the KLR Act, 1961 mandates that the Tahsildar must determine compensation for lands granted to tenants. The respondents' failure to act within a reasonable time and discharge these duties is a blatant violation of the principles

¶36

¶37

of natural justice and good governance. The petitioners have been left without any remedy for more than six decades.

¶38

The judiciary has repeatedly emphasized that revenue authorities must act with due diligence when discharging statutory functions. In Deokuer and Ors. vs. Sheoprasad Singh¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that administrative delays leading to the deprivation of a person's property rights cannot be condoned and mandamus should be issued in such cases to compel authorities to perform their statutory duties. Similarly, in Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram² the Court observed that “inaction on the part of statutory authorities to determine rightful compensation within a reasonable period amounts to gross negligence.” These precedents serve as a reminder that the respondents’ inaction constitutes a

¶39

1 AIR 1966 SC 359

¶40

2 [2007 (10) SCC 448]

¶41

¶42

dereliction of duty, leading to undue hardship for the petitioners.

¶43

The Special Deputy Commissioner-III,

¶44

summoned to Court on 11.09.2024, submitted that the records have been secured but sought additional time to determine the compensation owing to the magnitude of the land involved. While this explanation is noted, the Court cannot overlook the fact that lands were lost as far back as 1960, and the respondents had ample time to conclude the proceedings. In Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel³ , it was reiterated that procedural delays cannot be a justification for denying citizens their rightful claims, especially when statutory duties are involved. This Court finds that there is gross negligence on the part of the respondents in not settling the compensation payable under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1954, and Section 47 of the KLR Act, 1961. The petitioners have been made to suffer

¶45

3 [1985 AIR 1416]

¶46

¶47

the consequences of this inaction for over six decades, which is both unjust and inequitable.

¶48

The authorities under both Acts are under a

¶49

mandatory duty to determine compensation within a reasonable time. Their failure to do so amounts to a violation of the petitioners' rights. This Court cannot permit further delays and must ensure that the petitioners receive the compensation to which they are entitled.

¶50

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶53

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner/Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to determine and finalize the compensation payable under Section 17(1) of the Act, 1954, within a period of three months

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

(iii) The Tahsildar/respondent No.4, who is the competent authority under Section 47 of the KLR Act, 1961, is hereby directed to determine the compensation payable for the lands granted to tenants and to finalize the compensation process within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶57

(iv) Any further delay or failure on the part of the respondents will invite contempt proceedings and appropriate legal action.

¶58

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶59

*alb/-

Captain B v. Subbanna v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Captain B v. Subbanna v the 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

Sri. M S Praveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Farooq Aboushair Vs Smt. Shamsia Sultana

Dr Himamani S Vs State of Karnataka

Anilkumar S B Vs Karnataka Power Transmission

Smt M P Kamala Poovanna W/O Late M B Poovanna Vs M B Nanjamma W/O Late Belliappa