Disposed

Sirtaj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024WP/3904/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claimed ownership of 19 guntas in Sy.No.172/11A and objected to its being taken for a road without due process. The court directed the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, hear all parties, and decide within six months; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Deputy Commissioner directed to conduct Section 67 KLRA enquiry on Sy.No.172/11A within six months after hearing all parties; petitioners to appear on 25.11.2024 at 3 p.m.

Sirtaj Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43197 WP No. 3904 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3904 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SIRTAJ, S/O IBRAHIM KHAN, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. ZYAKAULLAH, S/O SATTAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. SAMIULLAH, S/O GAFFAR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

ANJUM PASHA S/O DASTHAGIRI KHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ALL ARE R/OF NARASANRA POST, MUTTANAPALYA VILLAGE, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 159.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRATHAP N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43197 WP No. 3904 of 2022

¶18

SECRETARIAT, III FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARAM-571 511.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-572 101.

¶21

TAHSILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA-572 101.

¶22

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KUDUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR-572 101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA)

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DETERMINE THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE PETITIONERS STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 FOR DEPRIVING THE PETITIONERS OF THEIR LANDS TO AN EXTENT OF 19 GUNTAS IN SY.NO.172/11A OF NARASANDRA VILLAGE OF MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43197 WP No. 3904 of 2022

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The writ petition pertains to the land situated in the undivided Sy.No.172 (before it was phoded) of Narasandra Village, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. W.P.No.2005/2017 was filed pertaining to the said property, wherein, allegations were made that certain persons had encroached upon the public property more particularly the road in the said survey number and a direction has been issued by this Court to examine the matter and dispose of the same. Thereafter, action has been initiated by the authorities concerned in respect of the said survey number. At this juncture, present writ petition came to be filed, wherein, the petitioners have contended that they are the owners of the property concerned and they have not encroached upon the public property or the road as alleged and inspite of it, their property is sought to be taken away for the purposes of road without following the due process.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:43197 WP No. 3904 of 2022

¶33

Learned AGA upon instructions submits that respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner shall conduct an enquiry and after hearing all the parties shall pass appropriate orders and if it is found that the petitioners are indeed the owners of the property concerned as alleged only after following the due process, they will be divested of the property and not otherwise. Her submission is placed on record.

¶34

The lis involves whether the property in Sy.No.172 where the road is required to be formed is a public road or a portion of it is owned by the petitioners and other private persons. If it is a public road and if the same is encroached upon by private parties, the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3) is empowered to make an enquiry under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and have the encroachments removed.

¶35

If in the course of such enquiry, it is found that the properties are owned by third parties, then if the State is still desirous of the forming the road on the said

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43197 WP No. 3904 of 2022

¶37

properties, then in that event, the land is required to be acquired in accordance with law and thereafter, State is required to proceed for formation of road on the said properties. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) Respondent No.3 is directed to conduct an enquiry regarding Sy.No.172 (more particularly 172/11A) of Narasandra Village, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and take appropriate decision thereafter as per the observations made herein above as expeditiously as possible which shall not be later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶40

ii) The petitioners shall appear before respondent No.3 on 25.11.2024 at 3.00 p.m. without further notice;

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:43197 WP No. 3904 of 2022

¶43

iii) The Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.3)

¶44

shall also hear such other parties that are

¶45

interested, if required;

¶46

iv) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

In view of disposal of main petition, all pending

¶48

interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶49

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶50

PGG

Sirtaj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sirtaj 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

Kiran Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer

Mr Krishna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Hanumakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Venkatamma Vs Devanahalli Tahsildar

Smt M Shakuntala T Alva Vs the State of Karnataka

S.N. Raja Vs State of Karnataka by Its