Landowner whose name was misspelt in 1996 acquisition records sought compensation after his correction request was rejected as time-barred under Section 13(A). The court directed an enquiry into whether he was the land loser and payment of compensation if confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:843 WP No. 630 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 630 OF 2024 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHAGAVAN L, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE LAKKANNAGOWDA, R/AT NO.117, 2ND MAIN, A1 BLOCK, IIIRD STAGE, VIJAYA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570 030.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2024:KHC:843 WP No. 630 of 2024
MYSORE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 07.03.2022, MADE IN REF. NO.REV. DEPT. AQM 2022 ISSUED BY THE R-1 COPY AT ANNX-E AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.12.2023 MADE IN REF NO. LAQ/SR3/94-95, ISSUED BY THE R-5 SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSORE THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ENDORSEMENT IS SUBMITTED AT ANNX-G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
petitioner as the name of the petitioner was erroneously shown as L.Bhagya instead of L.Bhagavan. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the respondentauthorities to correct the clerical error. However, the same has been rejected on the ground that, as per Section 13(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, clerical errors can be corrected only within six months after doing the same and the representation of the petitioner was made belatedly.
has not challenged the validity of Section 13(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Under the said circumstances, no error can be attributed to the authorities for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner was a villager and it was probably not possible for him to approach the authorities within time, on technical reasons, it may not be appropriate to deny the petitioner his precious rights over his lands concerned. Hence, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without making this case a precedent, it is deemed
NC: 2024:KHC:843 WP No. 630 of 2024
appropriate to issue the following directions to the respondent-authorities.
as to whether the petitioner is the loser of the land as contended by him and if they come to the conclusion that he is the loser of the land, then in that event, due compensation shall be paid to him irrespective of the order dated 02.12.2023 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.5 with all the necessary particulars on 12.02.2024, without further notice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is hereby disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34 CT: BHK
1 issue framed by the court
Should compensation be paid for land lost in a 1996 acquisition despite rejection of a belated request to correct a clerical name error under Section 13(A)?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Bhagavan L
The State of Karnataka
The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District
The Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub Division
The Thasildar, Periyapatna Taluk
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kabini Reservoir Project
M.I. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
