Karnataka High Court
Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Basappa Kolligudd vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2022
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
WP No. 102599 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 102599 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O. BASAPPA KOLLIGUDD,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE.
2. SHRUSHTI D/O. BASAPPA KOLLIGUDD,
AGE. 11 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE.
3. SOUMYA D/O. BASAPPA KOLLIGUDD,
AGE. 07 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE.
PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS REPTD BY
PETITIONER NO. 1
SMT. BHAGIRATHI W/O. BASAPPA KOLLIGUDD,
4. KADAPPA S/O. TIPPANNA KOLLIGUDD,
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE.
5. SHIVAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA HUNNSHIYALLI,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHIROL VILLAGE, TQ. MUDHOL, BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONERS
-2-
WP No. 102599 of 2022
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY IT SECRETARY TO THE REVEUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOTE - 587101.
3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
OFFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI - 590002.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
REPRESENTED BY APPOINTED AUTHORITY,
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMAKHANDI DIVISION, BAGALKOTE - 587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER
REPRESENTATION DATED 22-03-2022, 25-03-2022 AND
31-03-2022 AS PER ANNEXURE- L TO L2, M TO M2 AND N
TO N2 AND INTER ALIA AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT MADE/DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING.
-3-
WP No. 102599 of 2022
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.
2. The prayer in this writ petition is to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent/ SLAO to consider the representation dated 22.03.2022, 25.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 at Annexure - L to L2, Annexure - M to M2 and Annexure - N to N2 before passing the award.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier when it was pointed out that the SLAO has not taken into consideration the structures and trees standing on the land, a second JMC was conducted. It is pointed out from Annexure - K that in the subsequent JMC it has been recorded that there exists an RCC building, tin shed, bore wells/ well and trees in the lands belonging to the petitioners. However, it is sought to be contended at the hands of the petitioners that the SLAO is required to take into consideration the guidelines valuation issued by the -4- WP No. 102599 of 2022 public works department insofar as the buildings are concerned.
4. Per contra the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that when it is evident from the records that in the Second JMC all the material information have been gathered, it is but obvious that the respondent/ SLAO takes note of all the information that is available in the JMC. In respect of the valuation, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the valuation is required to be done in accordance with the guidelines valuation provided by the Public Works Department.
5. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, find that there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners. When they admitted that the structures and trees etc., have been noticed in the subsequent JMC, there is no reason why the SLAO will not consider the valuation of the said structures and malkies existing on the lands -5- WP No. 102599 of 2022 belonging to the petitioners. Moreover, when a statutory provision in terms of the Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides for a reference to the authority, if the petitioners find that the SLAO has not evaluated the structures and malikies in accordance with law and the petitioners are not satisfied with the award, then a reference could be sought from the authority.
6. For the reasons stated above this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However the respondent/ SLAO is required to take note of the observations made herein above before passing the award.
SD JUDGE PJ