Smt. v. Mala Vs the Deputy Commissioner

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3998 OF 2024 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. V. MALA W/O M. SHIVASHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO 131, OLD NO 3017, ARALAPETE WARD NO 04, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESWARA P N.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BEERASANDRA

¶13

KUNDANA HOBLI

¶14

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

¶15

DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶16

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS -207 HOSKOTE DABASPETE DIVISION, NEAR SONDEKOPPA CIRCLE, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶18

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, SY. NO.13, 14^TH KM NAGASANDRA,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶21

BESIDES METRO STATION TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 073.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, N. HCGP ;FOR R1; SRI. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. LAQ/ARB/NH-207/CR/01/22-23 DATED 13.06.2022 PASSED BY THE R1 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court claiming to be the owner of land bearing site Nos.20 and 21 each measuring 1200 sq. ft. forming part of Sy.No.31/1 situated at Dargapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, which was acquired for the purpose of widening of the National Highway No.207 (Dabaspete-Hoskote).

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶29

It appears that the respondent No.2-SLAO has

¶30

passed a statement of award in respect of land acquired as per Annexure-F1. That petitioner herein had made a representation dated 31.03.2021 as per Annexure-G claiming compensation in respect of her property referred to above. In response thereof, the respondent No.2-SLAO by a notice dated 26.04.2021 had called upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents in justification of her claim, which was also furnished by the petitioner along with a covering letter dated 21.06.2021 duly received and endorsed by the respondent No.2-SLAO. That the petitioner has thereafter filed a claim statement dated 06.08.2021 as per Annexure-K before the respondent No.2SLAO. That an endorsement dated 03.09.2021 as per Annexure-L has been issued by the respondent No.2-SLAO. Petitioner thereafter has filed a claim statement under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator who has issued the impugned endorsement dated 13.06.2022 as per Annexure-A.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the contents and grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that in the first place name of the petitioner was not

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶33

mentioned in the notification. Similarly, her name was not mentioned in the award that was passed by the respondent No.2-SLAO. He submits originally the land was agricultural land which was converted and a layout was formed in which the petitioner purchased two sites. However, the land was notified in its original form of agricultural nature in the names of the predecessors in title of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner had pursued her remedy seeking compensation by filing a representation and claim statement and also furnished documents referred to hereinabove. Without determining the claim of the petitioner, endorsement dated 03.09.2021 at Annexure-L came to be issued by the respondent No.2-SLAO declining to disburse the compensation amount as a completely untenable ground. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner had filed the petition before the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner who has also declined to consider the same reiterating the reasons assigned by the respondent No.2SLAO. Hence, he submits respondent No.2-SLAO as well as respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner have failed to discharge their statutory obligations as contemplated under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'Act 1956'). Hence, the petition.

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondents -NHAI on the

¶36

other hand submits that case of the petitioner will be considered if the petitioner establishes her claim over the property and appropriate orders will be passed given some time in this regard.

¶37

Heard. Perused the records.

¶38

Perusal of the records would indicate that

¶39

respondent No.2-SLAO has declined to consider the request of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner is asking for the compensation more than what is determined. The said endorsement dated 03.09.2021 as per Annexure-L reads as

¶40

under;

¶41

£ÀA.J¸ï.J¯ï.J.N/¨sÀÆ.¸Áé/gÁ.ºÉ.207/¹.Dgï.11/2021-22 ��ೇಷ ಭೂ�ಾ��ೕ�ಾ��ಾ�ಗಳ�

¶42

�ಾಗೂ ಸ�ಮ �ಾ��ಾರ ರವರ ಕ�ೇ� �ಾ��ೕಯ �ೆ ಾ!� �ಾ��ಾರ, �ೆಲಮಂಗಲ �ಾ.�ೆ -207(�ೊಸ�ೋ%ೆ - ಾಬ' �ೇ%ೆ �(ಾಗ) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03-09-2021.

¶43

ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ,ಮ-ೆ ./ಯಪ1ಸುವ3 ೇ�ೆಂದ�ೆ 5�ಾಂಕ 06-08-2021 ರಂದು ,ೕವ3 ಸ678ರುವ ಅ:;ಯ67 ೊಡ=ಬ>ಾ?ಪ3ರ @ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ದ-ಾ;ಪ3ರ -ಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ 31/1 ರ67 ಭೂ�ಾ��ೕನBಾCರುವ ,Bೇಶನ�ೆE ಪ�. ಚದರ ಅ1-ೆ ರೂ.3,200-00 ಗಳಂ@ೆ ದರ ,ಗ5ಪ18 �ಾವ.ಸುವಂ@ೆ �ೋ�ರು.Gೕ�.

¶44

,ೕವ3 ಸ678ರುವ ಅ:;ಯ ಬ-ೆH ಪ�Iೕ6ಸJಾC ದ-ಾ;ಪ3ರ -ಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ 31/1 ರ67 �ಾ��ೕಯ �ೆ ಾ!�-207 �ೈ 3ಅ1 ಅ�ಸೂಚ�ೆ ಸಂLೆM ಎ'.ಓ 2552(ಇ) 5�ಾಂಕ 23-10-2012

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶46

ರಂತ ಭೂ�ಾ��ೕನBಾCರುವ 4192 ಚ.Rೕ ಜRೕ,-ೆ �ಾ��ೕಯ �ೆ ಾ!� �ಾT!-1956 ರ ಕಲಂ 3(:) ಅ1ಯ67 ಈ-ಾಗJೇ ಪ�. ಚದರ RೕಟV-ೆ ರೂ.3229.20 ಗಳನುW ,ಗ�ಪ1ಸJಾCರುತG ೆ .

¶47

ಆದ!�ಂದ ,ೕವ3 �ೋ�ರುವ ಮನ�ಯನುW ಪ�ಗYಸಲು �ಾದM�ರುವ35ಲ7Bಾದ!�ಂದ ,ಮZ ಅ:;ಯನುW �Jೇ ಇಡJಾC ೆ .

¶48

��ೇಷ ಭೂ�ಾ��ೕ�ಾ��ಾ�ಗಳ� �ಾಗೂ ಸ�ಮ �ಾ��ಾರ, �ೆ ಾ!�-207 - ಾಬ' �ೇ%ೆ �(ಾಗ £Éಲಮಂಗಲ.

¶49

UÉ,

¶50

�.[ಾJಾ �ೋಂ IವಶಂಕV, £ÀA.131, 3017. ಆರ>ೆ�ೇ%ೆ , Bಾ; ನಂ.4. ೊಡ=ಬ>ಾ?ಪ3ರ.

¶51

There is neither any issue raised by the respondent

¶52

No.2-SLAO with regard to the basis on which the petitioner is claiming her title nor has be adjudicated the claim of the petitioner for compensation.

¶53

Under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 the petitioner has right to seek determination of her claim before the Arbitrator/Deputy Commissioner if the petitioner is not satisfied with the compensation determined.

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶56

Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 reads as under;

¶57

"3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.

¶58

(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.

¶59

(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten percent. of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.

¶60

(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.

¶61

(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land."

¶62

(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government."

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶64

It appears the petitioner in furtherance to the same, had preferred petition before the respondent No.1Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-M. In response whereof, respondent No.1 has issued endorsement dated 13.06.2022 as per Annexure-A, which reads as under;

¶65

ಕ�ಾ;ಟಕ ಸ�ಾ;ರ

¶66

ಕಂ ಾಯ ಇJಾLೆ

¶67

:Jಾ7��ಾ�ಯವರ �ಾ]ಾ;ಲಯ, ^ೆಂಗಳ_ರು -ಾ�[ಾಂತರ :Jೆ7,

ೇವನಹ/? @ಾಲೂ7ಕು,

)ಂಬರಹ

�ಷಯ: �ೆಚುbವ� ಪ��ಾರ �ೋ� ಸ678ರುವ ಅ:;ಯ ಪ�ಗಣ�ೆಯ ಬ-ೆH ಉJೆ7ೕಖ: I�ೕಮ. �.[ಾJಾ ರವರ ಅ:; 5�ಾಂಕ:05.05.2022.

¶73

I�ೕಮ. �.[ಾJಾ �ೋಂ IವಶಂಕV ಆದ ,ಮ-ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ./ಸುವ3 ೇ�ೆಂದ�ೆ , ,ೕವ3 ^ೆಂಗಳ_ರು -ಾ�[ಾಂತರ :Jೆ7, ೊಡ=ಬ>ಾ?ಪ3ರ @ಾಲೂ7ಕು, ಕಸ^ಾ �ೋಬ/, ದ-ಾ;ಪ3ರ -ಾ�ಮದ ,ಮ-ೆ �ೇ�ದ ಸ.ನಂ.31/1 ರ ಜRೕನು �ಾ��ೕಯ �ೆ ಾ!�-207 ( ಾ^ಾ' �ೇ%ೆ eಂದ �ೊಸ�ೋ%ೆ ) ಆಗ6ೕಕರಣ�ೆE ಭೂ �ಾ��ೕನBಾCದು!, �ೆಚುbವ� ಭೂ ಪ��ಾರ �ೋ� ಮನ� ಸ678ರುವ3ದು ಸ�ಯfೆg, ಆದ�ೆ @ಾವ3 ��ೇಷ ಭೂ �ಾ��ೕ�ಾ��ಾ�ಗಳ� �ಾಗೂ ಸ�ಮ ¥Áæ¢ü�ಾ�ಗಳ�, �ಾ��ೕಯ �ೆ ಾ!�207 �ೆಲಮಂಗಲ ರವರ ಬ/ ಸ.ನಂ.31/1 ರ ಭೂ �ಾ��ೕನ ಜRೕ,-ೆ ಸಂಬಂ�8ದಂ@ೆ ಮೂಲ ಭೂ ಪ��ಾರವನುW ಪhೆಯ ೇ �ೆಚುbವ� ಪ��ಾರ �ೋ� ಅ:; ಸ678ರು.Gೕ�. ಅಲ7 ೇ ತಮZ ಅ:;ಯ67 ಮೂಲ ಭೂ ಪ��ಾರ ಪhೆ5ರುವ ]ಾವ3 ೇ ಪiರಕ ಾಖJೆಗಳನುW ಸಹ ಲಗ.G8ರುವ35ಲ7.

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶76

ಆದ!�ಂದ ಮೂಲ ಭೂ ಪ��ಾರವನುW ಪhೆಯ ೇ �ೆಚುbವ� ¥ÀjºÁgÀ �ೋ� ಸ678ರುವ ತಮZ ಮನ�ಯನುW ಪ�ಗYಸಲು gÀºÀ ಇರುವ35ಲ7 ಎಂದು ./ಯುವ3ದು.

¶77

f¯Áè¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè.

¶78

EªÀjUÉ ²æÃªÀÄw «. ªÀiÁ¯Á PÉÆÃA ²ªÀ±ÀAPÀgï £ÀA.131, ºÀ¼ÉÃ £ÀA.3017, CgÀ¼ÉÃ¥ÉÃmÉ, ªÁqïð £ÀA.4 zÉÆqÀØ§¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ f¯Éè.

¶79

Perusal of the aforesaid endorsement would indicate

¶80

the only reason on which the Deputy Commissioner has declined to entertain the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956 is that the petitioner has not provided document regarding she having received the compensation determined by the respondent No.2-SLAO.

¶81

The reasons assigned by both respondent No.2SLAO as well as respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner do not stand the scrutiny of law and facts involved in the matter. There is no adjudication of the claim made by the petitioner either by the respondent No.2-SLAO or by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. The only reason assigned by the

¶82

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶83

respondent No.2-SLAO is that the petitioner is seeking compensation more than what they have determined and the reasons assigned by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner is that petitioner has not furnished the document of she having received the compensation. Both respondent No.2-SLAO and the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in the opinion of this Court ought to have adjudicated the claim of the petitioner by assigning the reasons with regard to the claim made by the petitioner.

¶84

In view of the above, following;

¶85

ORDER

¶86

(a) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶87

(b) The impugned Endorsement dated 13.06.2022 at Annexure-A issued by the

¶88

respondent No.1 is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, who shall pass orders taking into consideration of the claim made by the petitioner and grounds urged in the petition

¶89

in terms of Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Such order shall be

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:3065 WP No. 3998 of 2024

¶92

passed within an outer limit of three (3) months after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties.

¶93

(c) Needless to state the petitioner in the meanwhile is at liberty to seek release of compensation amount already determined by the respondent No.2-SLAO, who shall release the same if petitioner satisfies the requirement of law within an outer limit of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶94

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

¶95

RU

¶96

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Smt. v. Mala v the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. Mala v the Deputy Commissioner

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. S. Balaraju Vs the Commissioner

Ramesh R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rajanna B K Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma @ Mangala Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

B K Ganapathy Vs State of Karnataka