Karnataka High Court
Ramappa S/O Thimmappa Jakaraddi vs State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2022
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
WA No. 100568 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100568 OF 2015 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAMAPPA S/O.THIMMAPPA JAKARADDI,
AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O.: BADAGI, TQ.: BILAGI, DIST.: BAGALKOT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.S.PATIL & SHRI MAHANTESH R.PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
REHABILITATION & RE-SETTLEMENT LAND
ACQUISITION, UKP, BAGALKOT,
TQ. & DIST.: BAGALKOT.
Digitally
signed by
VISHAL 3. SRI MURUGESH NIRANI,
NINGAPPA
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location:
X-M.L.A. BILAGI,
PATTIHAL DHARWAD
Date:
2022.07.20
R/O.: JAMKHANDI ROAD, MUDH0L,
14:39:35
+0530 TQ.: MUDHOL, DIST.: BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GA FOR R1 & R2;
SHRI GIRISH A.YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
WA No. 100568 of 2015
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.7833/2007 PASSED ON
04.08.2015, ALLOW OTHER PRAYER AS SOUGHT IN THE
WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
This Intra Court Appeal calls in question the
order dated 04.08.2015, rendered by a learned Single
Judge of this Court in appellant's W.P. No.7833/2007
(LA-RES), whereby the relief of quashing the
acquisition of land has been denied. After service of
notice, the official respondents having entered
appearance through the learned GA oppose the writ
petition making submission in justification of the
impugned order and the reasons on which it has been
constructed.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the appeal papers, we
decline to grant indulgence in the matter being in
WA No. 100568 of 2015
complete agreement with the reasoning of the learned
Single Judge as spelt out at paragraph No.4 of the
impugned order; the same reads as under:
"4. I do not see any infirmity in the
acquisition proceedings in question. The
existence of another burial ground is not even
one of the objections taken by the petitioner in
response to the preliminary notification. Be it
as it may, the residents of one village cannot
be compelled to take the dead body of a
resident of their village to another village. As
far as the choice of the land for a burial ground
for any other public purpose is concerned, it
would be in the realm of the executive. The
Court would not substitute its wisdom for the
wisdom of the Government."
3. It is also relevant to reproduce the
observations of the learned Single Judge made at
paragraph No.5 of the impugned order, whereby right
of the appellant to seek enhancement of compensation
is retained. The said paragraph reads as under:
"5. In the result, this writ petition is
dismissed negativing the challenge to the
WA No. 100568 of 2015
acquisition proceedings. However, it is open to
the petitioner to seek the enhancement of
compensation in accordance with law.
Alternatively, it is also open to the petitioner to
approach the Government seeking the
withdrawal of the land from acquisition,
provided the possession of the land is not yet
taken from the petitioner. However, such an
observation should not be considered as a
direction to the Government to withdraw the
land from the acquisition. It is for the
Government to take a call on the issue as to
whether the land is required for the burial
purpose or not."
In the above, circumstances, the writ appeal
being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and
accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
