Allowed

Union of India v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2024WP/801/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by Railway challenging enhancement of compensation in land acquisition proceedings because the beneficiary was not made a party. Court held beneficiary must be heard; impugned order set aside and matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.03.2016 and communication dated 13.09.2022 set aside regarding enhancement of compensation; matter remanded to Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:888 WP No. 801 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.801 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION-IV) SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 046.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI CHANDRACHUD A., CGSC)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, H.R.P.-II, HASSAN- 573 201.

¶12

SRI BELUREGOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S,

¶13

SMT. PREMA D/O. LATE BELUREGOWDA W/O. SRI SHANKARA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT H.N. PURA ROAD K.HOSSAKIPPALU

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:888 WP No. 801 of 2023

¶16

KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN-573 201.

¶17

SMT. BHARATHI D/O. LATE BELUREGOWDA W/O. SRI SHYAM T.K., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT KASABA HOBLI HOLE THIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE THIMMANAHALLI, KANDALI HASSAN-573 217.

¶18

SRI UMESHA B. S/O. LATE BELUREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT GAVENAHALLI HASSAN-573 201.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.1; R.2: SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2016 IN LAC NO.520/2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HASSAN AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE COMMUNICATION/LETTER DATED 13.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-'B' AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:888 WP No. 801 of 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is South Western Railway. Lands

¶26

which are subject matter of the writ petition was acquired for the benefit of the petitioner herein. However, while determining enhancement of the compensation, the same has been enhanced without making the petitioner a party to the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶27

It is settled principle of law that when the land is acquired for a particular beneficiary, the proceedings where enhancement of compensation is decided, the beneficiary has to be heard. As the petitioner is not heard

¶28

in this case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence, the following:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶31

ii. The impugned order dated 14.03.2016

¶32

passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:888 WP No. 801 of 2023

¶35

Hassan in LAC No.520/2014 vide Annexure-'A' to the writ petition and notice dated 13.09.2022

¶36

¶37

to the writ petition are hereby set aside insofar as it relates to enhancement of compensation is concerned.

¶38

iii. The matter is remanded back to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hassan and parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

¶39

05.02.2024 without further notice.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

VMB

Union of India v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India 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

P.Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Divya Vs Sri Ramachandrappa

M/S Slv Petroleum Vs Sri N Venkatesh

Sri Bhagavan L Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sudha. S Vs the Tahasildar

Sri. M.R. Gopal Vs Sri Dharanesh