Sri Venkatesh vs The Special Land Acquisition ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6110 Kant

IN T IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.S.KINAGI

   WRIT PETITION NO.21828 OF 2021 (LA - UDA)
BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA,
R/AT NO.94, YARAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570011.
                                      ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.NATARAJA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
MYSURU-570001,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
                                     ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN
CASE NO.LAC(4) 28(A)5/2013-14 DTD. 04.04.2019 VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
IN 'B' GROUP HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                                2




                         ORDER

The subject matter of this writ petition is similar

to that in W.P.No.34015/2019 passed by this Court on

23.03.2021. Learned counsel for the parties jointly

submits that this writ petition shall be disposed of in

terms of the aforesaid order.

2. The petitioner has sought for the following

relief:

i. "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the order passed by the respondent in case No.LAC(4) 28(A) 5/2013-14 dated 04.04.2019 vide Annexure-G.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate or order directing the respondent to consider the application filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, vide Annexure- F and F on merits in accordance with law and in terms of the award passed by the

Learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Mysuru in L.A.C.No.381-382/2000 dated 25.10.2013/18-11-2013 vide Annexure- C and D.

iii. Issue any other writ or Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

4. The petitioner has filed an application

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short 'the Act'). The reference Court rejected the

application as barred by limitation. The petitioner has

filed an application under Section 28-A of the Act for

re-determination of compensation in the light of the

judgment passed in LAC.Nos.381-382/2000 disposed

of on 25.10.2013 vide Annexure-C, the respondent

proceeded to dismiss the said application. Hence, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the impugned order is contrary to

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Union of India and another Vs. Hansoli Devi and

others reported in (2002)7 SCC 273. It is therefore

contended that the impugned order passed by the

respondent deserves to be quashed and the matter

may be remitted back to the respondent for

re-determination of compensation on merits without

reference to the disposal of the earlier application filed

by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that in the light of the decision of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hansoli Devi's case

(supra), the application filed by the petitioner under

Section 28-A of the Act will be considered in

accordance with law.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for

the respondent is placed on record.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed;

          ii.     The        impugned               order         dated
                  04.04.2019          vide      Annexure-G            is
                  hereby set aside and quashed;

          iii.    The matter is remitted back to the
                  respondent           for          reconsideration

afresh in accordance with law and by directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Act without reference to the earlier application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the

Act as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

SD/-

JUDGE

ssb