Smt Chethan G Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Chethan G Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned notice dated 18.02.2017 (Annexure-N) quashed; matter remitted to respondent No.2 – Land Acquisition Officer to determine apportionment of compensation after affording all claimants an opportunity to be heard, within an outer limit of 3 months from receipt of certified copy; interested persons at liberty to file versions; no precipitative action by the authorities till such order; SLAO to confine project implementation to the ear-marked acquired land; writ petitions disposed of accordingly and pending IA disposed of.

Issue for consideration

How is the compensation payable for the acquisition of 1 acre 04.50 cents of Sy.No.82/2 of Asodu village, Kundapura taluk, acquired for the Varahi Canal Project, to be apportioned as between the original owners (petitioners in WP Nos.38058/2017 and 10742/2018) and the rival claimants who purchased portions of the property (petitioners in WP No.33074/2018)? +1 more

Court's answer

The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 – Land Acquisition Officer, who shall afford sufficient opportunity to the parties concerned and thereafter pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the law applicable with regard to the apportionment of the compensation; such exercise shall be undertaken within an outer limit of 3 months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

Ratio / Principle

No reasons of any nature whatsoever were assigned in the impugned notice calling upon the petitioners to re-deposit the compensation paid; although titled a 'final notice', it is in substance an order passed without providing any opportunity of hearing, which is impermissible, and the notice vide Annexure-N is liable to be quashed.

Key takeaways

The notice dated 18.02.2017 at Annexure-N is quashed.ratio¶130
The petitioners in these petitions and other persons claiming interest in the subject property are at liberty to file their version, which shall be taken into consideration by the respondent – SLAO before passing the order of apportionment.ratio¶135
Till such an order of apportionment is passed, no precipitative action shall be taken by the respondent-authorities.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (M.G.S. Kamal, J.; decided 15.01.2025) disposed of three connected writ petitions — WP Nos.38058/2017, 10742/2018 (by original owners Chethan G Shetty and Gopalakrishna Shetty) and WP No.33074/2018 (by six rival claimant purchasers led by Ganesh Narasimha Achar) — concerning apportionment of compensation for 1 acre 04.50 cents of Sy.No.82/2, Asodu village, Kundapura taluk, acquired for the Varahi Canal Project. Compensation had been disbursed to the original owners, triggering rival claims by the purchasers; thereupon the Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a 'final notice' (Annexure-N dated 18.02.2017 in No.LAQ.SR 05/2012-13) directing re-deposit of Rs.1,30,65,253/- within 3 days. Holding that the notice assigned no reasons and was in substance an order passed without any opportunity of hearing — impermissible — the Court quashed Annexure-N, remitted apportionment to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide afresh after hearing all claimants (within 3 months), permitted interested persons to file their versions, barred precipitative/coercive action meanwhile, and directed that only the ear-marked acquired land be used for the project.