Roopali Bai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2025WP/17565/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition Karnataka; withdrawal of general award under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; Government Letter No.KAM E 06 AQY 2019 dated 31.03.2023; preliminary notification statutorily rescinded for non-issue of declaration within 12 months; Co-ordinate Bench order in W.P.No.12090/2023 (LA-RES) dated 22.04.2024 followed; liberty to initiate fresh acquisition; Chikkamagaluru / Kadur / Tarikere; Visvesvaraya Jala Nigama Limited; Article 226 writ (LA-RES); award dated 18.02.2022 (Annexure-D).

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; the preliminary notification in the instant case held rescinded, with liberty reserved to the respondent-authorities to initiate fresh acquisition if so advised. ¶¶69

Roopali Bai Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of; the preliminary notification in the instant case held rescinded, with liberty reserved to the respondent-authorities to initiate fresh acquisition if so advised.

¶¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned Government Letter No.KAM E 06 AQY 2019 dated 31.03.2023 withdrawing the general award ought to be quashed and the award dated 18.02.2022 (Annexure-D) restored. +1 more

¶¶58

Ratio / Principle

Given that the award dated 18.02.2022 had been withdrawn and, as submitted by counsel for the respondent-authorities, the declaration was not issued within the time stipulated, the Court saw no reason to differ from the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.12090/2023 (LA-RES).

¶¶64

Key takeaways

The preliminary notification in the instant case was held to have been rescinded, with similar liberty reserved to the respondent-authorities to initiate fresh acquisition if so advised.ratio¶¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), single Judge (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), oral order dated 09.01.2025 in Writ Petition No. 17565 of 2023 (LA-RES) under Article 226: Twenty landowners of Beeranahalli, Mathigatta, Kadur, Chikkamagaluru sought quashing of Government Letter No.KAM E 06 AQY 2019 dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure-A) issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, intimating withdrawal of the general award dated 18.02.2022 (Annexure-D) under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and restoration of the award. Following the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 22.04.2024 in W.P.No.12090/2023 (LA-RES) under the very same notification for adjacent properties — wherein the preliminary notification was held statutorily rescinded since declaration was not issued within 12 months and written reasons for extension were not notified — this Court held that the preliminary notification in the present case also stood rescinded, and disposed of the petition reserving similar liberty to the respondent-authorities to initiate fresh acquisition if so advised.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:798 WP No. 17565 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17565 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ROOPALI BAI

¶9

W/O ESHWARA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶10

RUPEE BAI W/O R. KRISHNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SHIVAMURTHY NAIK S/O KRISHNA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶13

SONAKIBAI W/O SOMLANAIK, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶14

SEENA NAIK S/O SAKRYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR -577 548.

¶15

SHANKARA NAIK

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:798 WP No. 17565 of 2023

¶18

S/O PAPA NAIK AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶19

KRISHNA NAIK S/O LATE RANGYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶20

GOVIND SWAMY S/O RUDRA NAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA

¶21

KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶22

THIMAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶23

INDIRA BAI W/O SEETHA RAMA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶24

SHANKARA NAIK S/O LACCHA NAIK AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶25

B L GOVINDA NAIK S/O LINGANAIKA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶26

SUDHA

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:798 WP No. 17565 of 2023

¶29

W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶30

GOWRI BAI W/O THIMMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶31

MALLIKARJUNA K.N., S/O K S NIRAJAN MURTHY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶32

PRAKASH NAIK G. S/O GOVINDA NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS MADALU, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶33

RATHNI BAI W/O MALLESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, LAKKANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶34

SEENA NAIK S., W/O LATE SHYAMA NAIK, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶35

MEGHARAJ B S S/O SHIVAMURTHY NAIK, BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶36

KAMALI BAI W/O KALYA NAIK R BEERANAHALLI, MATHIGATTA

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:798 WP No. 17565 of 2023

¶39

KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 548.

¶40

…PETITIONERS

¶41

(BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M.,ADVOCATE)

¶42

AND:

¶43

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶44

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶45

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

¶46

AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶47

TARIKERE SUB DIVISION,

¶48

CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶49

VISVESVARAYA JALA NIGAMA LIMITED, REP. BY: MANAGING DIRECTOR, # 148, GROUND FLOOR, EMBASSY SQARE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHREEDEEP N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.KAM E 06 AQY 2019 DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶53

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

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:798 WP No. 17565 of 2023

¶56

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶57

ORAL ORDER

¶58

Petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the impugned Government Letter dated 31.03.2023 produced at Annexure-A issued by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka to Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagaluru District, Chikkamagaluru intimating that the general award that was passed in respect of the lands that were acquired including the lands belonging to the petitioners has been withdrawn in exercise of powers under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and for a direction directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore the award that was passed as found at Annexure-D dated 18.02.2022.

¶59

Counsel for the respondent -authorities files a memo along with a copy of the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12090/2023 (LA-RES) pertaining to the very same notification in respect of the properties situated adjacent

¶60

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:798 WP No. 17565 of 2023

¶62

the village, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking note of the delay in passing the award has observed that the preliminary notification stood statutorily rescinded since declaration was not issued within 12 months and the reasons recorded in writing for extending the same has not been notified and accordingly disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the Government to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh. Thus, he submits that acquisition of the properties of the petitioners in the instant case would also stands covered by the said order.

¶63

In that view of the matter and also in view of

¶64

the fact that even in the instant case the award that was passed on 18.02.2022 has been withdrawn and as submitted by the counsel for the respondent -authorities declaration has not been issued within the time stipulated, this Court do not see any reason to defer from the order that is passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the preliminary notification in the instant case also has to be held to have been rescinded by reserving

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:798 WP No. 17565 of 2023

¶67

similar liberty to the respondent -authorities to initiate

¶68

fresh acquisition if so advised.

¶69

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶70

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶71