Dismissed

C. Shanthamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/41318/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the rejection of their claim for re-determination of land compensation due to delay. The High Court held the claim time-barred under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and dismissed the petition, finding no fault with the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as the claim for re-determination of compensation was barred by limitation; endorsement upheld.

C. Shanthamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11023 WP No. 41318 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 41318 OF 2015 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

C. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT BYADARABILUGALI VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 570 017.

¶8

PUTTANACHARI S/O. NANJUNDACHARI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BYADARABILUGALI VILLAGE, HARANAHALLI HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PIN CODE: 570 017.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SMT. KAVITHA H C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HARANGI PROJECT, HUNSUR, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN CODE: 570 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA, AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED.18.5.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D1 AND CONSEQUENTLY

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11023 WP No. 41318 of 2015

¶18

DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RE-DETERMINE THE COMPENSATION BY AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,13,232/- PER ACRE AS HAS BEEN AWARDED IN LAC 66/2009, DATED.13.11.2013, BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HUNSUR AT PERIYAPATNA, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

These facts are not in dispute.

¶22

On the lands of the petitioners that been acquired, the petitioners have sought Reference under Section 18 and the Reference Court by an order dated 19.10.2010 allowed the Reference in part and determined the compensation of Rs.62,000/- per acre.

¶23

It appears that several other land owners whose lands were also acquired under the very same Notification also sought Reference and the Reference Court, by an order dated 13.11.2013 granted them compensation by determining the same at Rs.6,13,232/- per acre.

¶24

Nearly two years thereafter, on 02.05.2015, the petitioners sought re-determination of the award under

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11023 WP No. 41318 of 2015

¶26

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by placing reliance on the order passed by the Reference Court on 13.11.2013 in respect of other landowners. The Land Acquisition Officer, by the impugned endorsement dated 18.05.2015, has rejected this claim on the ground that the application for re-determination was made beyond the time stipulated under Section 28A of the Act.

¶27

Section 28A of the Act clearly states that a written application for re-determination had to be made within three months from the date of the award of the Court.

¶28

However, in this case, though the Reference Court, by an order dated 13.11.2013, enhanced the compensation in respect to the lands covered under the same Notification, the application for re-determination was made nearly two years thereafter on 02.05.2015. It is, therefore, clear that the claim for re-determination would be clearly barred by time and the impugned endorsement giving the said reason for rejecting the claim cannot be

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11023 WP No. 41318 of 2015

¶31

found fault with. I find no reason to entertain this petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed .

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

C. Shanthamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Shanthamma v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

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

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Vikas S Reddy

Sri. Venkatappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Narayanamma Vs M/S the Prince Builders and Developers

Sri Govindaraju Vs the Prl Secretary

Smt Ashwathamma Since Dead Represented by Her Lr Sri Purushotham Vs Sri T N Rudresh

Smt. Gopamma Vs State of Karnataka