Smt Nagalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MARUTHI TOWERS, FIRST FLOOR, NEAR S.I.T. COLLEGE, B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU-572303.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47938 WP No. 22296 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

TAHSILDAR, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU-572302.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3^RD RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED NO.ViBhuSwaa/ KIADB/Tu/Com/No.12362/47/2024-25 DATED 23/04/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE A; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT NO.ViBhuSwaa/KIADB/Tu/Com/NO.12362/47/2024-25 DATED 23/04/2025 ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 issued by the third respondent whereby her request for grant of compensation in respect of ‘A’ Kharab land forming part of the Hiduvali land in Sy Nos. 9/1, 9/2, 9/3, 9/4 and 9/5 of Bahujana Halli Village, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru, has been rejected.

¶25

The lands of the petitioner were acquired by the third respondent for the industrial purpose vide notification

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47938 WP No. 22296 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

dated 23.07.2010. The petitioner claims to have purchased lands from its original owner including the portion classified as ‘A’ Kharab land and thereafter made a representation to the third respondent to award compensation for the ‘A’ Kharab land of Sy Nos. 9/1 to 9/5. Respondent No. 3 issued an endorsement stating that the compensation had been awarded only in respect of the Hiduvali portion and that ‘A’ Kharab lands were not compensable. The petitioner aggrieved by the said endorsement had preferred petition before this Court in W.P.No. 2871 of 2021. This Court by order dated 10.01.2024 observed as under :

¶29

“ 6. In the instant case, admittedly, certain Kharab lands have been acquired. But, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner or respondent nos.2 and 3 are not in a position to state clearly with documents as to whether the said Kharab lands are private lands or Government lands. It is also further submitted that there is a dispute as to ownership over the lands concerned and the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that she is the owner of the property.

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47938 WP No. 22296 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

7. Under the said circumstances, it will be appropriate to issue a direction to respondent nos.2 and 3 to initially determine whether the Kharab lands acquired are owned by private individuals or Government and if they come to the conclusion that the lands acquired are private lands, then in that event, they shall deposit the compensation amount before the Reference Court as expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly.”

¶33

This Court had directed respondents 2 and 3 to first determine whether the acquired Kharab lands belonged to private individuals or the Government and, if found to be private lands, to deposit compensation before

¶34

the Reference Court. Despite this direction, upon the petitioner’s fresh application dated 14.02.2024, respondent No.3 again reiterated the earlier endorsement without any enquiry or determining the character and ownership of the ‘A’ Kharab lands.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 had issued notice on 15.04.2025 calling upon the petitioner to appear on

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47938 WP No. 22296 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

22.04.2025, however, without considering the objections

¶39

filed by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed on the very next day, i.e., 23.04.2025 in complete disregard to the petitioner’s submission.

¶40

A perusal of the impugned order discloses that no reference has been made to the objections submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order has been passed without adverting to or considering the petitioner’s contentions, rendering it unsustainable on the face of the records and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Court pass the following :

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(a) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶43

(b) The impugned order dated 23.04.2025 issued by the third respondent at Annexure-A is hereby set aside.

¶44

(c) The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 3 to pass order afresh in accordance with law, after considering the objections filed by the

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:47938 WP No. 22296 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

petitioner and after holding an enquiry to determine whether the ‘A’ Kharab land forms part of private ownership or the Government land. If on such enquiry if it is found that ‘A’ Kharab land belongs to the petitioner, compensation shall be awarded by passing an appropriate order. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶48

(d) It is made clear that respondent No. 3 shall pass orders strictly in accordance with law and only after conducting due enquiry.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶51

CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Smt Nagalakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagalakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Maligachari Naraynswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Bhagya M R Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Rajesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sunith R Vs the State of Karnataka

Harish Ravilla Vs the Bangalore Electric Supply Company Ltd.

Sharath Kumar Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka