Maliyappa Basappa Telgi vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18 October, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Maliyappa Basappa Telgi vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 18 October, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                              1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
             CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

      DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

       WRIT PETITION NO. 70137/2012 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN

MALIYAPPA BASAPPA TELGI
AGE: 40 YEARS,
R/AT: KOPPA SR. TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)


AND

1.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT

2.    THE GENERAL MANAGER
      UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
      NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. K VIDYAVATHI, AGA)


      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE
PETITIONER DATED:13/07/2012, COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-C
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO PASS THE
SUPPLEMENTARY AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN
RESPECT OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO.11/1+2B
(1A-19g), 11/3A (0-23g) AND 11/3B (0-26g) OF KOPPA S.R.
VILLAGE, BILAGI TALUKA, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT.
                             2




      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRL.HEARING,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Petitioner extended consent for acquisition of their lands for a public purpose following which consent awards were passed under subsection (2) of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 during the year 1998. Thereafterwards petitioner filed representation dt. 13.7.2012 Annexures-C, for compensation in respect of the malkis, which when not considered by the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus.

2. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in identical circumstances a learned Single Judge by order dt. 10.11.2011 Annexure-D disposed of the writ petitions by issuing a direction to the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer to consider the representations of the petitioner therein, however did not go into the question of delay and laches and that similar such directions 3 order be issued in this case, I am afraid is unacceptable. I say so because that order is per incurim and does not lay down a law which is a precedent.

3. The delay and laches disentitle the petitioner to any relief. The petition is rejected.

SD/-

JUDGE ln

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court