Karnataka High Court
Shidram S/O Muregeppa Kudagi vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 24 May, 2023
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 200378 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200378 OF 2014 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHIDRAM
S/O MUREGEPPA KUDAGI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O HOLE HANGARAGI
TQ. & DIST. BIJAPUR
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MS BUILDING, BANGALORE-1
Digitally signed by 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
B NAGAVENI AND GENERAL MANAGER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
KARNATAKA
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT
NAVNAGAR, AT BAGALKOT
DIST. BAGALKOT-587101
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UKP, ALAMATTI-586201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 16.07.1999 PASSED BY THE THIRD
-2-
WP No. 200378 of 2014
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO AN EXTENT OF PETITIONER
LAND AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 25.03.2013/01.04.2013 IN
NO.MAVYA/BHUSWA-4/VINIVA-344/2012-13/15 PASSED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. "Issue a writ or direction or order writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned Award dated 16.7.1999 passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-A to an extent of petitioner land and the endorsement dated 25.3.2013/1.4.2013 in No:MaVya/Bhuswa-
4/ViNiVa-344/2012-13/15 passed by 2nd Respondent vide Annexure-F. b. Issue a writ or direction or order writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pay the difference amount from FRL 514-515 to 524 meters or to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings.
And c. Pass any such order or orders as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.No.193 measuring 21 acres 16 guntas situated at Hangaragi village, Bijapur Taluk and District. The said land has been acquired by the State by issuing -3- WP No. 200378 of 2014 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 21.11.1996. The Final Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act came to be issued on 22.04.1997 and compensation came to be crystallized at Rs.54,000/- for dry lands, Rs.90,000/- for irrigated lands and Rs.1,14,000/- for lands growing 2 crops per year vide award dated 16.07.1999 passed under Section 11(2) of the Act.
3. The contention of the petitioner now is that the land of the petitioner being situate at Flow River Level (FLR) of 524 meters, the earlier acquisitions made in the year 1996 being more or less restricted to FRL of 514-515 meters, the land of the petitioner ought not to have been acquired and therefore, the petitioner's land not having been submerged, the said land is required to be reverted to the petitioner and only if it submerges, the same could be acquired. In this regard, a further argument of discrimination is also -4- WP No. 200378 of 2014 put forth contending that certain other lands which are situated at FRL of less than 524 meters have not been acquired and it is only the land of the petitioner which has been acquired. It is on the basis of these grounds, Smt.Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition is required to be allowed.
4. Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the dam level now stands at 524 meters and therefore, FRL would also be 524 meters if the water level increases. The increase or otherwise of the water level would depend on the flow of the water by rain or otherwise. Merely because, it has not reached 524 meters today, would not mean that it will not reach 524 meters in the near future and in that background, the land had been acquired. The level is maintained below 524 meters on account of certain river water disputes -5- WP No. 200378 of 2014 between the adjoining States. If those disputes were not there, the water level would have been maintained at the highest level of 524 meters. On this basis, he submits that acquisition being proper and the petitioner having received the compensation way back in the year 1999, the present reliefs are not maintainable.
5. Heard Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the papers.
6. The short question in the present matter is, could the petitioner seek for return of the land, subject however to further acquisition, on the ground that the land has not got submerged and therefore, requirement of the acquisition notification is not fulfilled?
-6-WP No. 200378 of 2014
7. In the present case, the Preliminary Notification was issued in the year 1996, the Final Notification was issued in the year 1997, the award was passed on 16.07.1999 and the amount is received by the petitioner. Admittedly, the dam level is 524 meters or more thereby, indicating that FRL could be 524 meters. In such a situation, the possibility of submergence being ever present, it cannot be contended that the object or purpose of the acquisition notification has not been achieved and therefore, land has to be reverted to the petitioner and only when there is a possibility or actual submergence, the land could be acquired.
8. The land having been acquired in the year 1996 and compensation having been paid in the year 1999 at the value of the land, merely because, subsequently, there is increase in the value of the land, the petitioner cannot thereafter seek for reverting of the land.
-7-WP No. 200378 of 2014
9. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds which are made out in the above Writ Petition. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
10. I.A.No.1/2021 does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44