Karnataka High Court
Suresh Siddappa Sonnad And Ors vs Government Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 July, 2013
Author: Mohan M Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF JULY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.102073-102077/2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Suresh Siddappa Sonnad
S/o Siddappa Sonnad,
Age: 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Bhimappa Vithappa Gadadan
S/o Vithappa Gadadan
Age: 72 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
3. Gopalgouda Laxmangouda Patil,
S/o Laxmangouda Patil,
Age: 68 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
4. Hanamant Mahadev Arakeri,
S/o Mahadev Arakeri,
Age: 52 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
5. Krishnappa Sheshappa Biradar,
S/o Sheshappa Biradar,
Age: 56 Years, Occ: Agriculture,
2
All are Residents of Devargennur village,
Tq: Bijapur, Dist: Bijapur-586101.
...Petitioners
(By Sri Sudarshan.M., Advocate)
AND:
1. Government of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Department of Revenue,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore-560001.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Krishna Project. Alamatti,
Tq: Basavan-Bagewadi,
Dist: Bijapur.
3. The General Manager (L.A.),
Upper Krishna Project,
Navanagar, Bagalkot,
Dist: Bagalkot-587101.
... Respondents
(By Sri Manvendra Reddy, Government Advocate)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
circular dated 04.07.2013 issued by the respondent
3
No.2 vide Annexure-C bearing No.«¨ÀsƸÁéC/J¯ï.J.PÀÆå.
J¸ï.Dgï.58/95-96, 9/02-03/167 and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The question involved in these writ petitions are fully covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of SADASHIVAIAH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2003 KAR 5088, wherein it has observed thus:
"15. Therefore, it becomes clear if the land falls within the category of 21(2)(a) it is not a government land, it belongs to the ownership of the petitioners. If it falls under 21(2)(b) then it belongs to the government and the petitioners cannot have a claim over the said land. However, when the petitioners claim that the said land falls within 21(2)(a) and therefore they are entitled to the 4 compensation LAO proceeds on the assumption that it falls within section 22(1)(b) and therefore they are not entitled to compensation as it belongs to the government and accordingly he has declined to pass any award. It is not in dispute that before arriving at such a conclusion the LAO has not given an opportunity to the petitioners in the enquiry under Section 11 of the Act to substantiate their contention. Without any such enquiry, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners he proceeds on the assumption that the said Kharab land falls within 22(1)(b) and therefore petitioners have no claim, as such he has declined to pass the award. On that ground also, the impugned orders passed by the LAO cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following order:
Writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 02.11.2000 in W.P.Nos.7440 and 9155-9204/2001,
Annexure-J; 02.11.2000 in W.P.Nos.26275- 5 26277/2001, Annexure-G; 22.12.2001 in W.P.Nos.5998-6000/2002, Annexure-J;
21.10.2001 in W.P.No.18488/2002, Annexure-J; 4.12.2001 in W.P.No.18427/2002, Annexure-F and 26.03.2002 in W.P.No.18231/2002, Annexure-T are hereby quashed. The Land
Acquisition Officer is directed to hold an enquiry under Section 11 of the Act and to pass award setting out the true extent of the land acquired, the compensation payable for the said land and then if he is of the opinion the claimants are not the owners of the said land, the said land belongs to the government to apportion the compensation accordingly. If any request is made by the petitioners for reference under Section 18(1) of the Act within the time prescribed under law then to make a reference under Section 18(1) of the Act to the Civil Court for adjudication. Parties to bear their own costs."6
2. The above dictum is squarely applies to the facts of this case. From the above it is clear that the word 'pot kharab' mean and have reference to a land which is included in an assessed survey number but which is unfit for cultivation. Every pot kharab land does not belong to government. For the purpose of assessment, the uncultivable portion of the land or phut kharab portion of the land is excluded from consideration on the ground that it is cultivable. But it does not cease to belong to the owner of the survey number.
3. If the land falls within the category of 21(2)(a) of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, it is not a government land, it belongs to the ownership of the petitioners. If it falls under 21(2)(b) then it belongs to the government and the petitioners cannot have a claim over the said land. Petitioners' claim is that the land 7 falls within the Rule 21(2)(a) of the Rules and therefore, they are entitled to compensation.
Be that as it may, the Land Acquisition Officer is not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners without referring to the aforementioned dictum of this Court. The aforementioned judgment of this Court in the case of SADASHIVAIAH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2003 KAR 5088 has been followed by this Court in number of judgments i.e., in W.P.No.18451/2007 and W.P.No.20029/2005 etc. The very dictum is applicable to this case.
4. Accordingly, the following order is made:
ORDER The impugned endorsement at Annexure-D stands quashed. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to 8 hold an enquiry under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and to pass award setting out the true extent of the land acquired and the compensation payable for the said land. While deciding the matter, the Land Acquisition Officer shall verify as to whether the land falls under Rule 21(2)(a) or Rule 21(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and thereafter, the decision shall be taken.
Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk