Karnataka High Court
Mareppa S/O Late Beerappa And Ors vs The Secretary To Govt. Of Karnataka & Ors on 7 August, 2017
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G. Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.201486-201514/2017 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MAREPPA S/O LATE BEERAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. NINGANNA S/O LATE BEERAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3. NAGANNA S/O LATE BEERAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
4. SURESH S/O SHANKAR,
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
5. ANIL S/O SHANKAR,
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
6. LAXMAN S/O SHANKAR,
AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
7. RAJU S/O MANNU (MANSINGH)
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
8. GURUNATH S/O VALU
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
9. VIJAYA S/O MANGU,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2
10. HEMA S/O NEELU,
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
11. CHANDU S/O BHOJU,
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
12. BABU S/O LALU
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
13. SHANKAR S/O CHANDU,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
14. GEMU S/O CHANDU,
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
15. PRAKASH S/O CHANDU,
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
16. NEHRU S/O RAMU,
AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
17. RAMESH S/O RAMU,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
18. HARI S/O RAMU,
AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
19. GOPAL S/O PANDU,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
20. SUNIL S/O PANDU,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
21. RAJU S/O FAKRU,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
3
22. NARAYAN S/O SHANKAR RATHOD,
AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
23. UMESH S/O BUDDU,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
24. GEMU S/O BUDDU,
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
25. THAKRU S/O BUDDU,
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
26. SANTOSH S/O LATE GOPAL,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
27. PANDU S/O LATE NAKHRU,
AGE ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
28. NEHRU S/O LATE NAKHRU,
AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
29. RAMESH S/O NAKRHU,
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
ALL R/O: VILLAGE MUGULNAGAON
TQ: CHITTAPUR-585211
DIST: KALABURAGI. .... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N.KRISHNACHARYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE SECRETARY TO
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
LAND ACQUISITION DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS BHAVAN,
BENGALURU-560001.
4
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI-585102.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SEDAM-585222.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
CHITTAPUR-585211. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARCHANA.P.TIWARI, AGA)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 26.10.2016 AS PER
ANNEXURE-H FOR PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
AMOUNT OF ACQUIRED LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS
AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The above writ petitions are preferred by the petitioners praying for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 26.10.2016 as per Annexure-H and direct them to make payment of compensation for the lands acquired by them.
5
3. It is stated in the writ petition that the lands were acquired vide notification dated 17.02.1971 for the purpose of construction of water tank, a public purpose. The lands belonged to the ancestors of the parties and no amount has been paid to the ancestors, despite acquisition of lands.
4. The learned AGA placed the copies of the vouchers which are signed by certain parties. She would submit that the ancestors of the parties have signed on the vouchers and received the compensation.
5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that petitioners cannot be permitted to dispute the said fact in proceedings under Article 226 and are those which are required to be demonstrated in a regular trial. Reserving a liberty to approach Civil Court, these writ petitions be disposed off. 6
6. It is submitted by the learned AGA that the petitioners have also instituted a suit O.S.No.18/2016 and it is pending on the file of the Civil Judge, Jr. Dn. Shahabad.
7. In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of law. Hence, though this Court is inclined to impose heavy costs, but keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are all agriculturists and daily wage workers, this Court does not impose costs. Hence, writ petitions deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
KJJ/SMP