Sri M R Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-J; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE

¶24

2 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:42775 WP No. 30690 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND MEASURING 300 SQUARE METERS IN SY.NO.47 OF RAYASANDRA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶33

to quash the endorsement dated 18.07.2022 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-J, whereby respondent No.3 denied compensation to the petitioner on the ground that the land has been converted subsequent to the final notification.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits

¶35

that the present writ petition was filed prior to the order passed in W.P. No.36071/2024 c/w W.P. No.26864/2024, which came to be disposed of on 18.03.2025.

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42775 WP No. 30690 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

W.P. No.26864/2024 was preferred by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenging the conversion order in favour of the petitioner herein, contending that such conversion was effected after the issuance of preliminary notification. The said writ petition came to be disposed of and the relevant portion for the purpose of the present case is extracted below:

¶39

“9. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the land looser submits that, the petitioner would be satisfied with the compensation is paid on the premise that the 300 square meters of the land is in fact an agricultural land and, he does not insist on the said extent being valued as a converted land.

¶40

10. In the light of this statement, the prayers made in the wit petition filed by the NHAI would not survive for consideration and the NHAI would be liable to pay the compensation in respect of the 300 square meters of land by construing it as a agricultural land.

¶41

11. It is needless to state that, the valuation that would be made in accordance with law by taking into consideration the value of the land, as it

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42775 WP No. 30690 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

existed, as on the date of the preliminary notification. ”

¶45

(emphasis supplied)

¶46

The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court has held that

¶47

the land loser (petitioner herein) is entitled to compensation. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner that he would not insist on valuation as converted land but would accept valuation as agricultural land, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed in WP No.26864/2024. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶50

ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner as indicated at paragraph Nos.9 to 11 in W.P. No.26864/2024 and connected petition within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶53

MBM

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

Sri M R Ravi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M R Ravi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshaya Villa Owners Association Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri Janardhan Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S C Sharma Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri M Suresh Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M D Charanraj Vs the State of Karnataka