Allowed

Sri Rajanna P v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024WP/2732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner whose land was acquired for the Yettinahole Project sought reference to District Court for enhanced compensation; SLAO rejected his delayed application by endorsement. The writ petition was allowed and endorsement set aside.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 19.09.2023 set aside; matter remitted to Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the reference application afresh per Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act.

Sri Rajanna P Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:51695 WP No. 2732 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 2732 OF 2024 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. RAJANNA.P S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT. HARIVANAPURA VILLAGE, CHENNAHALLI POST, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 107.

¶9

PRESENT ADDRESS: R/A NO.43, ARAKESHWARA LAYOUT, SUBASHNAGARA, TARABANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 090.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶16

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, YETHINAHOLE PROJECT, NEAR TILAK PARK CIRCLE, GANDHINAGARA, TUMKURU - 572 102.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:51695 WP No. 2732 of 2024

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VISHVESHWARAIAH JALA NIGAMA LTD., YETHINAHOLE PROJECT DIVISION, OPP. SAIBABA TEMPLE, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 102.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 19/09/2023, BEARING NO. SLAO/SR 19/2018-19, ISSUED BY THE R2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, YETHINAHOLE PROJECT, NEAR TILAK PARK CIRCLE, GANDHINAGARA, TUMKURU -572102, VIDE ANNEXURE-C, WITH RESPECT TO REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER FOR REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR ENCASHMENT OF COMPENSATION OF SY. NO. 26/8, MEASURING 34 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HARIVANAPURA VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51695 WP No. 2732 of 2024

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the Endorsement dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure-C) issued by respondent No.2, seeking for reference to the District Court for enhancement of compensation.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner, that the subject land in the writ petition has been acquired by the respondentauthorities for the purpose of Yettinahole Project and awarded meager compensation and accordingly, the petitioner has filed application seeking referral application to the District Court, having not satisfied with the compensation determined by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, after considering the material on record vide Endorsement dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure-C), rejected the claim made by the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶29

Heard Sri. V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath.K, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:51695 WP No. 2732 of 2024

¶32

2 and Sri.Nagaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

¶33

Sri. V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited the attention of this Court to the application along with the affidavit at Annexure-B to the writ petition and submitted that, the respondent-authorities have not considered the reasons for delay in filing the application seeking reference to the District Court for determination of the compensation and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶34

Per contra, Sri. Nagaiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, invited the attention of this Court to Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act') and contended that, respondent No.1 is empowered to condone the delay up to one year from the date of issuance of Award and therefore, sought for rejection of the writ petition.

¶35

Sri. Manjunath.K, learned High Court Government Pleader, argued on the similar lines.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51695 WP No. 2732 of 2024

¶37

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the language employed under Section 64 of the Act, which provides the aggrieved claimant to seek reference to District Court for enhancement of compensation. Proviso to Section 64 of the Act, empowers the Deputy Commissioner/Collector to entertain the delay application filed after the expiry of the period, however, the said application shall be made within one year from the date of issuance of award.

¶38

In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the satisfaction of the respondents are based on the reasons stated by the petitioner, in the affidavit accompanying application and the said reasons stated by the petitioner has not been considered by respondent No.2 in the light perspective, while issuing the Endorsement dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure-C), I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:51695 WP No. 2732 of 2024

¶43

ii. Endorsement dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure-C), issued by respondent No.2 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner to re-consider the issue a fresh and pass appropriate speaking order considering the reasons stated by the petitioner, with regard to accepting the reference application after efflux of time as per Section 64 of the Act, so also the date of knowledge of the petitioner insofar as seeking reference to the District Court for enhancement of

¶44

compensation.

¶45

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶46

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SNN

Sri Rajanna P v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajanna P v. the Deputy Commissioner

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 T Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Nayan Taj Vs the Commissioner

Sri Muddaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Basavarajappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs the Mysore Urban Development Authority

Sri Doddanna Vs State of Karnataka