Allowed

Mr T Dejappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/2565/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land losers denied house sites under a State rehabilitation package because they were not residing on the acquired lands sought quashing of the rejection order. The court held coparcenary rights suffice, set aside the impugned order and directed grant of sites within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.11.2019 set aside; SLAO directed to recommend grant of rehabilitation sites and Assistant Commissioner directed to grant them within six months.

Mr T Dejappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:22485 WP No. 2565 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.2565 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. T. DEJAPPA AGED 70 YEARS S/O LATE BABU KOTTARI R/AT JEPPU, KUDUPADI JEPPINAMOGURU VILLAGE MANGALORE, D.K.-575002.

¶8

MR. T. PHAKEERA YANE PRAKASH AGED 64 YEARS S/O LATE BABU KOTTARI R/AT D.NO.5/144/13 ANTHONY COMPOUND, JEPPINAMOGURU MANGALORE-575 004.

¶9

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

¶10

(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAHUL SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), INDUSTRIAL AREA BAIKAMPADY, MANGALORE-575 011.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22485 WP No. 2565 of 2022

¶16

MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR POST: KUTHETHUR, VIA: KATPALLA MANGALORE TALUK-575 030, COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND IT IS A LIMITED COMPANY.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION MANGALORE-575 001.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR MANGALORE TALUK, TALUK OFFICE MANGALORE-575 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.1, R.4. R.5; SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SMT. KEERTI KUMAR FOR SMT. S.LAKSHMI, ADVOCATES FOR R.3.)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRITS OR DIRECTIONS, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.11.2019 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2/THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (KIADB) IN LAQ.S.R.NO.7/2016-17(IV)/447 HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE GRANT OF HOUSE SITE UNDER THE REHABILITATION PACKAGE DATED 18.12.1992 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1/GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-'A', ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:22485 WP No. 2565 of 2022

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

¶27

The case of the petitioners is that their family owned certain lands in Survey Nos.27/1, 32/12 and 32/4A of 62 Thokooru village, Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. The said lands were acquired for the purpose of respondent no.3/Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemical Limited. In addition to compensation granted to the acquired lands, the State Government also came up with a rehabilitation package for the land losers wherein every married couple and coparceners (widow or widower) in the family, who lose their house steads would be entitled to a site. It is submitted that the petitioners are brothers and

¶28

they also have two more brothers. For their lands being acquired, the two other brothers have been granted two sites by the State. However, the request of the petitioners have been turned down. Hence, petitioner no.1 preferred

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:22485 WP No. 2565 of 2022

¶31

W.P.No.35475 of 2016 before this Court and the authorities were directed to consider his request. Based on the said judgment, both the petitioners made a request to the authorities concerned. Again by way of the impugned order, the said request has been turned down. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the lands concerned were not acquired for the purpose of respondent no.3 and it was for another company and for that reason, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the petitioners failed to give evidence to show that they were residing in the place which has been acquired because of which their contention has been rejected. For the said reasons, respondent no.2 prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22485 WP No. 2565 of 2022

¶35

Admittedly, on the ground that the lands belonging to the family of the petitioners have been acquired for the purposes of respondent no.3, two other brothers of the petitioners have been granted sites. Thus, the contention of respondent no.3 that the lands concerned were not acquired for its benefit cannot be sustained.

¶36

The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is can allotment of sites be denied to the petitioners on the ground that they were not residing, at the time of acquisition, in the lands which have been acquired?

¶37

Admittedly, the lands acquired are agricultural lands. The family of petitioners were tilling the said lands. Further, the rehabilitation package does not mandate that the petitioners should be tilling the land. It is sufficient if they have the coparcenary rights over the said lands. It is nobody's case that if

¶38

the lands were not to be acquired, the petitioners would not have got rights over the lands concerned after the demise of their father. Under the said

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22485 WP No. 2565 of 2022

¶40

circumstances, it has to be concluded that the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. Further, it is also seen that vide Annexure-E to the writ petition which is dated 13.02.2014, the jurisdictional Special Land Acquisition Officer has recommended for grant of rehabilitation package to the petitioners.

¶41

Hence, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶44

(ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

¶45

(iii) Respondent no.2 is hereby directed to suitably recommend for grant of rehabilitation package by respondent no.4 in favour of the petitioners and respondent no.4 is hereby directed to act on the recommendation to be made by respondent no.2 and grant sites to the petitioners as per the rehabilitation package;

¶46

(iv) The said exercise shall be completed by respondent nos.2 and 4 within a period of six

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:22485 WP No. 2565 of 2022

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

hkh.

Mr T Dejappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr T Dejappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S Rajagopala Reddy Vs Paramahamsa Reddy

Sakamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Mohan Kumar.M Vs Smt. Sharadamma

M/S Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bangalore Development Authority (Bda)

Sri. Sarovar Badrinath Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T a Gurubalaji Vs State of Karnataka