Sri v Muralidhara Vs Special Land Acquisition Officers and Competent Authority

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:788 WP No. 36127 of 2024

¶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. 36127 OF 2024 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI V. MURALIDHARA S/O. C.VARADARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. HULTHAR HOSADODDI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA-DISTRICT - 562 159.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERS AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT

¶13

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

¶14

OF THE REVENUE BHAVANA RAMANAGARA - 562 159.

¶15

SRI.PRAVEEN KUMAR R AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O.LATE D.N.RAMANJANEYA

¶16

SMT. ANURADHA R., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O. LATE D.N.RAMANJANEYA

¶17

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.11, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, GOVINDARAJANAGARA, VIJAYANAGARA,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:788 WP No. 36127 of 2024

¶20

BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ONE PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY IN NH275/SLAOCR-01/2024-25/257 DATED 19.12.2024 AS FOUND AT ANNEXURE -A.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Smt.Shilpa Shah, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. Copy of the petition is served today.

¶28

In this petition, petitioner claiming to be the legal representative of the original owner of land in Sy.No.30 is seeking the following relief:

¶29

"To set aside the Impugned Order one passed by the Respondent No.1 Authority in NH275/SLAOCR-01/202425/257 Dated 19.12.2024 as found at Annexure -A."

¶30

From the records it appears that portion of land in

¶31

Sy.No.30 which was granted to the forefathers of petitioner has been sold under two deeds of sale in favour of private

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:788 WP No. 36127 of 2024

¶34

respondents 2 and 3. Challenge to the said alienation was mounted by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara under Section (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (PTCL Act) which was allowed by order dated 01.08.2022. An appeal against the same has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara in LND/SC/ST/18/2022-23 and the same has been allowed setting aside the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order 25.10.2024 produced at Annexure-G.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in the process of taking necessary steps questioning the aforesaid order at Annexure-G.

¶36

That in the meanwhile respondent No.1 -authorities had acquired the subject property and had even proposed to disburse the compensation amount determined by issuing award notices dated 04.11.2024 as per Annexures-H and H1 in favour of the petitioner. However in view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order of the

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:788 WP No. 36127 of 2024

¶39

Assistant Commissioner with regard to alienation of the granted land, the respondent No.1 -authorities have passed an order dated 19.12.2024 as per Annexure-A intending to disburse the compensation amount in respect of land in Sy.No.30/2 (30/3) measuring 885 sq. meters and Sy.No.30/1(30/3) measuring 283 sq. meters in favour of the private respondents. Hence, the urgency is claimed.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondents 2 and 3 submit a sum of Rs.81,91,412/- has already been remitted to the account of respondent No.2 and approximately an amount of Rs.99,00,000/- has already been disbursed to the account of the petitioner. Further learned counsel for private respondents submit that private respondents are concerned only in respect of land bearing Sy.No.30/2 which is also assigned with new No.30/3 which they have purchased under deeds of sale of which an extent measuring 885 sq. meters sought to be acquired as seen at Annexure-H1 and not concerned with any other extent of land forming part of said survey number.

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:788 WP No. 36127 of 2024

¶43

In that view of the matter what remains is only apportionment of compensation based on the claims made by the rival parties. The authorities concerned are vested with power to determine the issue regarding apportionment of compensation amount. This Court cannot show any indulgence at this juncture in this writ petition.

¶44

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the respondent No.1 -authorities who shall consider the case and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶45

Needless to state no opinion or reason is expressed with regard to claim of the petitioner on the orders at Annexure-E.

¶46

Petitioner is at liberty to make representation/application before the respondent No.1 -authorities and seek apportionment of compensation within ten days from today till then respondent No.1 -authorities shall not disburse any amount, if not already disbursed, in respect of land in Sy.No.30/1 (Sy.No.30/3).

¶47

SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Sri v. Muralidhara v Special Land Acquisition Officers and Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri v. Muralidhara v Special Land Acquisition Officers and Competent Authority

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 G Chikka Bayanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N R Amarnath Vs the Commissioner

Vemuri Sambashiva Rao Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Anjala Nirmala, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ashwathamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Dhananjaya Murthy Vs the Commissioner