Dismissed

Mr. C Shashikala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2024WP/25454/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to restrain KIADB from taking forcible possession of her agricultural land acquired in 1996 and assigned in 2013. Noting her earlier writ petitions challenging the same acquisition were dismissed, the court dismissed this petition but preserved her right to claim enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with liberty to claim enhanced compensation if entitled.

Mr. C Shashikala Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:3053 WP No. 25454 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.25454 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. C. SHASHIKALA W/O. M. JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. IGGLURU VILLAGE ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 081.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI DR. S. ARUMUGHAM, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE BY ITS SECRETARY VIKAS SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD RASHROTHANA BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.3/1, ARVIND BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU -560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:3053 WP No. 25454 of 2022

¶17

M/S. PALRECHA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIMR OFFICE NO.203, 2ND FLOOR BETAVIA CHAMBER KUMAR PARK ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS PARTNER PRAVEEN SHAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.286, 17TH CROSS 8TH MAIN, UPPER PALACE ORCHID SADASHIV NAGAR BENGALURU-560 080.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R.1; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.3; SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE FOR R.4.)

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 ND 4 NOT TO TAKE FORCIBLE POSSESSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ACQUIRED BY THE KIADB AT ANNEXURE G DATED 16.04.1996 AND ALSO ASSIGNED TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ON 05.01.2013 AT ANNEXURE L WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY FORCE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ND EQUITY.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:3053 WP No. 25454 of 2022

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner claiming to be the owner of 1 acre 36 guntas of agricultural land in Sy.No.83/4 in Iggluru Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:-

¶26

"A. Wherefore the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction to the respondent No.2 and 4 not to take forcible possession of the agricultural land acquired by the KIADB at Annexure G dated 16.04.1996 and also assigned to the fourth respondent on 05.01.2013 at Annexure L without due process of law by force in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

B. And also pass such relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the KIADB submits that petitioner had challenged the said acquisition in W.P.Nos.48591/2016 c/w. W.P.Nos.59693/2016,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:3053 WP No. 25454 of 2022

¶31

1997/2017, 2267/2017 and 11542/2017 and the writ petitions were dismissed.

¶32

In the light of the same, the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶33

However, dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner claiming enhanced compensation in accordance with law, if she is so entitled.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

VMB

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Mr. C Shashikala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. C Shashikala 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Tungabhadra Vidya Samsthe (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pillappa Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri R Srinivasan Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

K Shivaprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshmidevamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Balakumar Vs Smt. Manjula S