Karnataka High Court
Smt. Neelavva W/O Rangappa Biradar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
W.P.Nos.108628-629/2017 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NEELAVVA W/O RANGAPPA BIRADAR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
1A) SMT.SUMA W/O RANGANAGOUDA PATIL @ MELLIGERI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KAGALAGOMB,TAL: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
1B) POOJA D/O RANGANAGOUDA PATIL @ MELLIGERI,
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KAGALAGOMB,TAL: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
1C) PRAJWAL S/O RANGANAGOUDA PATIL @ MELLIGERI,
AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KAGALAGOMB,TAL: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
1D) PRANAV S/O RANGANAGOUDA PATIL @ MELLIGERI,
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: KAGALAGOMB,TAL: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
PETITIONER Nos.1C AND 1D ARE MINORS AND ARE
REP.BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND, NATURAL MOTHER
PETITOINER No.1A.
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.S.C.HIREMATH, ADV. FOR P1(A-D))
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MALAPRABHA PROJECT,
SECTOR NO.60,
NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOTE.
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA,
COFFEE BOARD,
BENGALURU.
4. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA,
SRINAGAR CIRCLE,
NEAR KUD, DHARWAD.
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA,
M.B.C. DIVISION NO.1,
GADDANAKERI,
CAMP SECTOR NO.60,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI.RAMESH N.MISALE, ADV. FOR R3 TO R5)
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILD UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTOIN OF INDIA PRAYING THAT THE HON'BLE COURT
BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR
ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT No.2 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.07.2017 A COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURES-F AND G AND PAY
3
THE DAMAGES WITH INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF POSSESSION IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 04.07.2017 vide Annexures-F and G.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that, petitioners were the owners of the agricultural land bearing R.S.No.166/2A and R.S.No.166/1 situated at Katageri village of Badami Taluka. The portion of the above said land was acquired by the respondents for formation of Muchakhandi Distributor canal under Ghataprabha project. An award was passed by respondent No.2. The petitioners received the award under protest and filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. During the pendency of the reference, the beneficiary and the 4 petitioners have entered into a compromise and compromise petition was filed before reference Court in LAC No.64/2012.
3. The contention of the petitioners that respondent No.2 taken the possession of the land under acquisition prior to issuance of 4(1) notification. Respondent No.2 has not awarded any compensation for the possession taken by respondent No.2 before issuance of 4(1) notification. Hence, petitioners claim that they are entitled for damages. Petitioners submitted a representation to respondent No.2 seeking damages with interest from the date of possession till issuance of 4(1) notification. Respondent No.2 has not considered the representation submitted by the petitioners vide Annexures-F & G. Hence, these writ petitions.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiremath submits that respondent No.2 5 will consider the representation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. His submission is placed on record.
5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 04.07.2017 filed by the petitioners vide Annexures-F & G. Respondent No.2 shall give an opportunity to the petitioners as well as beneficiary and after hearing the parties pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the entitlement of the damages by the petitioners as claimed in the representation.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-