Disposed

Mariyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2024WP/5419/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held efficacious remedy existed under Section 54(1) and reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach the competent court regarding survey issues.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty reserved to approach competent court on survey matters; time condoned under Section 14 of Limitation Act.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49305 WP NO.5419 OF 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.5419 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MARIYAMMA

¶9

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LR'S.

¶10

1(a). SMT. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE MARIYAMMA AND LATE MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶11

1(b). SMT. AMBARISH S/O LATE MARIYAMMA AND LATE MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

1(c). SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE MARIYAMMA AND LATE MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: DODDASANNE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. M. SREENIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:49305 WP NO.5419 OF 2019

¶20

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEPARTMENT BOARD (INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT), KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT) KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS D.C. COMPOUND, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶24

THE BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶25

SRI. K. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE KEMPANNA, AGD ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT: PRASHANTHA NAGAR, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PROPRIETOR OF AKASH HOSPITAL, PRASANNAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶26

SRI. B.R. MADHU SUDHAN S/O B.N. RAMAMURTHY,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:49305 WP NO.5419 OF 2019

¶29

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT BIDALUR VILLAGE & POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶30

M/S P.A.C.L. INDIA LIMITED REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, MR. RASHID TALWAI, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: SOFIA MANZIL, NO.187, R.M.V. II STAGE, 12^TH CROSS, DOLLARS COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶31

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER & SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1, R4 & R9; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. GANAPATHI HEGDE AND SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R7 - SERVED;

¶34

V/O DATED 15.04.2024, NOTICE TO R8 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11^TH JANUARY, 2016 PASSED IN L.A.C. NO. 225/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, DEVANAHALLI, REJECTING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49305 WP NO.5419 OF 2019

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 11^th January, 2016 passed in L.A.C. No.225/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, wherein the reference petition filed by the mother of petitioners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, came to be dismissed.

¶41

Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 raised preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in view of efficacious remedy available to the petitioners under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶42

Sri. M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 28^th July, 2004 (Annexure-B) passed in Writ Petition No.443 of 2004 and submitted that the measurement of the land in question is to be completed at the instance of the respondentRevenue Authorities to determine the extent of land being acquired by the respondent-Authorities.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:49305 WP NO.5419 OF 2019

¶45

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the Reference Court having taken note of the factual aspects on record, had passed order dated 11^th January, 2016 (Annexure-A). Though, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that the land in question has to be surveyed jointly at the instance of the respondent No.4, the said aspect of matter cannot be considered in the writ proceedings. In that view of the matter, as the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Court, writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

It is made clear that the time spent by the petitioners before this Court be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

¶47

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶48

ARK

Mariyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamma 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

Ramanna S Vs the Management of

Sri Dianna Divya J D Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. C Pushpaveni Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

Smt Pushpa Malekal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Ganesh Anjappa Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

Sri Venugopal P Vs the Commissioner