Karnataka High Court
Virupakshappa S/O Narsappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 August, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION Nos.101723-725/2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Virupakshappa S/o Narsappa
Aged about 59 years
R/o Manslapur
Tq and Dist: Raichur
2. Parvatamma W/o Late Eranna
Aged about 52 years
R/o Manslapur
Tq and Dist: Raichur
3. Bhimanna S/o Narasappa
Aged about 50 years
R/o Manslapur
Tq and Dist: Raichur
4. Shivanandaiah S/o Mahadevaiah
Aged about 36 years
R/o Manslapur
Tq and Dist: Raichur
5. Basawaraj S/o Rajanna
Aged about 48 years
R/o Yarmaras
Tq and Dist: Raichur
...Petitioners
(By Sri Sanjeev Kumar C. Patil, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Department of Revenue
M.S. Building
Bangalore - 560 001
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Raichur District
Raichur - 584 101
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
And Assistant Commissioner
Raichur Sub-Division
Raichur - 584 101
4. The Chief Project Officer
Karnataka State Highway Improvement
Project, 1st Floor, PWD Annexed Building
K.R. Circle, Bangalore - 56001
...Respondents
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R-1 to R-3;
R-4 served)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to (i) issue a writ,
direction or order in the nature of certiorari by quashing
award at Annexure-C dated 19.01.2006 in so far as
petitioners land is concerned, (ii) issue a writ, direction or
order in the nature of certiorari by quashing Annexure-J,
endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent dated: 19.07.2011
bearing No:BHUSW:2010-11, etc.
3
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order dated 19.07.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent as well as the award dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) as far as the petitioners' lands are concerned.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur - respondent No.2 herein, after convening the meeting with all the land owners discussed the settlement of compensation on 29.06.2005. Pointing out the mistake in the earlier proposal, forwarded the proposal award to the Government for approval. Respondent No.1 passed the order without ratifying the mistake pointed out by the 2nd respondent and awarded compensation. Some of the land owners of Eklaspur and Askihal village approached this Court, whereby this Court directed the respondents to pay the compensation of 4 Rs.3,50,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- above the compensation awarded as per the consent award. The petitioners submitted that, the application was filed by the petitioners before the respondents seeking the same compensation in terms of the orders passed by this Court. However, the respondents have rejected the application, holding that the order passed by this Court is limited only to the petitioners in the said writ petitions and is not applicable to the petitioners herein.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the four villages namely Askihal, Eklaspur, Manslapur and Yarmaras comes under the municipal limits of Raichur. A common consent award was passed for the lands situated in these four villages. The petitioners herein are holding the lands at Manslapur and Yarmaras villages. These petitioners should be treated on par with the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9301/2006 (D.D.19.04.2010). The 3rd respondent without appreciating 5 the same, rejected the applications filed by the petitioners, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The petitioners herein are the small holders of lands and they have been treated differently from that of the other land losers who have been compensated on a higher measure. These petitioners are discriminated in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed objections and submitted that the Manslapur village does not fall under the municipal limits of Raichur CMC, whereas Askihal and Eklaspur fall under the municipal limits of Raichur CMC. As such, the 3rd respondent is justified in rejecting the applications made by the petitioners seeking higher compensation on par with the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9301/2006.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6
6. It is not in dispute that, the land losers of Askihal and Eklaspur villages have filed writ petition in W.P.No.9301/2006 before this Court and this Court considering that the land losers are entitled to higher compensation, fixed the compensation at Rs.3,50,000/- per acre in so far as the lands of the petitioners therein are concerned. The same was considered and followed by this Court in Writ Petition No.84024-027/2011 (D.D.21.06.2012) and other connected matters. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, they have not been treated on par with the said petitioners. It is an admitted fact that Manslapur village does not fall within the municipal limits of Raichur CMC. However, the petitioners have filed a certificate issued by the Raichur CMC that, Yarmaras village comes under municipal limits of Raichur CMC. The actual location of the lands has to be ascertained by the competent authorities concerned to award the higher compensation as claimed by the petitioners, more 7 particularly, when a common consent award was passed for all the four villages. The location of the lands forms the basis for awarding further compensation. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to reconsider the applications filed by the petitioners inasmuch as claiming higher compensation on par with the petitioners in Writ Petition No.9301/2006 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that, if the lands of the petitioners herein falls within the municipal limits of Raichur CMC., the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation in terms of Writ Petition No.9301/2006, but the quantification of compensation depends on the nature of the land and its location.
7. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-J is quashed and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the applications in the light of the observations made above and pass appropriate orders 8 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu