Dismissed¶59

Sri. N. Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2025WP/9526/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KIADB acquisition; lapse of acquisition for want of possession; Section 28(4) KIAD Act; notification KADB/BQ/196/1991-92 dated 05.02.1992; excess land claim; compensation received 31.05.1991; records of right Annexure-B; Sy.No.125/1 Devanagundi village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk; pending suit O.S.No.202/2020; Article 226; Article 227; High Court of Karnataka; M.G.S. Kamal J; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Once the petitioner admitted that his 2 acres of land had been acquired and compensation received, the question of the acquisition having lapsed would not arise. ¶53

Sri. N. Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the acquisition of the petitioner's land has lapsed on the contention that though compensation was paid, possession of the alleged excess land was not taken. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

Once the petitioner admitted that his 2 acres of land had been acquired and compensation received, the question of the acquisition having lapsed would not arise.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Records of right at Annexure-B show the petitioner as owner of only 2 acres in Sy.No.125/1; a petition seeking relief in respect of purported excess land cannot be entertained.

¶54

Key takeaways

Any claim of the petitioner to excess land is to be pursued under law, and has already been initiated in the pending suit O.S.No.202/2020; dismissal of the writ petition shall not come in the way of determination of that claim.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (LA-KIADB) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by N. Ramesh, recorded owner of 2 acres in Sy.No.125/1, Devanagundi Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, seeking certiorari to quash the KIADB notification dated 05.02.1992 (cause title: 04.02.1992) in KADB/BQ/196/1991-92 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act (Annexure-H), and mandamus not to dispossess him, on the plea that although compensation for the acquired 2 acres was received on 31.05.1991, possession of an alleged excess 2 acres was never taken and the acquisition had therefore lapsed. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) once the petitioner admitted acquisition of his 2 acres and receipt of compensation, the question of the acquisition lapsing did not arise; (ii) the records of right (Annexure-B) showed him as owner of only 2 acres in Sy.No.125/1 and, on repeated query, counsel could not point to any excess land, so the petition could not be entertained; (iii) any claim to excess land was left to the pending civil suit O.S.No.202/2020, which the dismissal would not affect.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1720 WP No. 9526 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 9526 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. N. RAMESH S/O LATE M. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT GEDDALAPURA VILLAGE JADEGANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -502 114.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SHIVASHANKAR K.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE REP. BY THE SECRETARY M S BUILDIN

¶14

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

¶15

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶16

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER PALACE ROAD, ADAJACENT TO SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

HINDUSTAN PETORLIUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY AUTHORIZED PERSON NO. 1, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI P.O. BOX NO. 5452 INDIAN EXPRESS BUILDNG

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:1720 WP No. 9526 of 2022

¶21

4^TH FLOOR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK HOSKOTE

¶23

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶24

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKSOTE TALUK

¶25

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

¶26

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK

¶27

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562 114.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA AGA FOR R1, R4, R5 AND R6; SRI. H.L. PRADEEP KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3-SERVED)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DT.04.02.1992 ISSUED BY THE R2, ANNEXUREH. AND TO ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS NOT TO DISPOSES THE PETITIONER FROM THE PROPERTY AND TO GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO NOT TO DISPOSES THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:1720 WP No. 9526 of 2022

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

In this petition petitioner has sought for following reliefs;

¶37

"i). To Issue writ in nature of certiorari to quash the & notification dt. 05/02/1992 in KADB/BQ/196/1991-92 issued by the 2nd Respondent-ANNEXURE-H.

¶38

ii). To Issue writ in nature of mandamus not to disposes the petitioner from the property.

¶39

iii). To pass any other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of the proceedings."

¶40

Petitioner is before this Court claiming to be the

¶41

owner of land bearing Sy.No.125/1 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas situated at Devanagundi village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. That the said property formed part of large extent of land measuring 7 acres 7 guntas.

¶42

That an extent of 5 acres 7 guntas of said land had been notified by the respondent -State vide notification dated 05.02.1992 under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act.

¶43

3. Admittedly award has been passed and the

¶44

petitioner has received the compensation as far as back as on 31.05.1991. Petitioner is before this Court claiming that apart

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:1720 WP No. 9526 of 2022

¶47

from 2 acres of land he also in possession of excess land and though the compensation has been paid possession has not been taken. Therefore, the acquisition has lapsed, is the contention.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent -KIADB submits that the entire acquisition process has been completed complying with all the statutory requirements contemplated under the Act and compensation has been paid in respect of the 2 acres of land belonging to the petitioner and that the petitioner has received the same by executing indemnity bond. Thus, he submits that present petition is frivolous, vexatious filed only to overreach. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner in response submits that petitioner does not dispute the fact with regard to acquisition of 2 acres of land and receipt of compensation. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that there is an excess of 2 acres of land which in possession of the petitioner and the respondent -authorities are trying to take over the same without acquisition. Hence, the petition.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:1720 WP No. 9526 of 2022

¶52

Heard. Perused the records.

¶53

When once the petitioner has admitted that his 2 acres of land has been acquired and compensation has been received, the question of acquisition having lapsed would not arise. On a repeated query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out from the records the purported excess land, if any, held by the petitioner.

¶54

Perusal of the records, more particularly, records of right produced at Annexure- B would indicate that petitioner namely, N Ramesh, S/o Narayanappa is shown to be the owner of only 2 acres of land in Sy.No.125/1. In that view of the matter, petition of this nature seeking relief in respect of purported excess land held by the petitioner is cannot be entertained.

¶55

It is seen from the records that petitioner has also filed a suit in O.S.No.202/2020 in respect of the said purported excess land which is pending consideration. Since the subject matter of the acquisition is admittedly only 2 acres of land belonging to the petitioner, if the petitioner has any claim in respect of any excess land, he is at liberty to seek such relief as

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:1720 WP No. 9526 of 2022

¶58

may be available under law which in the present case has already been initiated by the petitioner by filing a suit in O.S.No.202/2020.

¶59

In that view of the matter, no grounds are made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶60

Dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of determination of claim of the petitioner in the pending suit in O.S.No.202/2020.

¶61

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

¶62

RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. N. Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. N. Ramesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Chethan G Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Renuka Chinnaiah Poojari Vs the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member

Smt. H Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sunandamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Keroji Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B K Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka