Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Basawreddy vs State Through And Ors on 20 June, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.207639/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.207639/2017 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Ramesh S/o Basawreddy,
Age: 31 years, Occ: Private Service &
Agriculture,
R/o Nalwar Village, Tq. Chittapur,
Dist: Kalaburagi-585218.
... Petitioner
(By Sri S.Basavaraj, Sr. Counsel for
Sri Sanjeev Kumar C.Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. State through
Deputy Commissioner,
Mini Vidhan Soudha,
Kalaburagi-585102.
2. C.E.O. Zilla Panchayat,
Jagat Circle, Kalaburagi-585101.
3. Asst. Executive Engineer,
PWD, Tq. Chittapur, Dist. Kalaburagi.
4. Tahsildar, Chittapur,
Station Road, Tq. Chittapur,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
(Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, HCGP for R1, R3 & R4;
2 W.P.No.207639/2017
Sri Anand S.Jahagirdar, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to grant writ in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate acquisition
proceedings and grant adequate compensation for
encroached land & damaged Crops of land Sy.No.31 of
Nalwar Village, Tq. Chittapur, Dist: Kalaburagi and etc.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents
No.1, 3 and 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
2. Brief facts as revealed from the records which are
necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are
that, the petitioner claims that his father was the owner in
possession of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.31
measuring 8 acres 37 guntas and after his death, the
petitioner's name was entered in the revenue records of the
said land. In the year 1981, the Government had planed to
lay a road under Suvarna Gram Scheme from Nalwar to
Kadabur and for the said purpose an attempt was made by
the respondents No.1 and 2 to encroach the petitioner's land
and at that juncture, petitioner's father had filed suit in
O.S.No.46/1981 against respondents No.1 and 3 herein and
the said O.S.No.46/1981 was decreed by the jurisdictional
Civil Court and the defendants therein were restrained from
laying out the road in the plaintiff's land without acquiring
the same or without granting adequate compensation to the
plaintiff.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner's that
defendants had filed appeal in R.A.No.25/1983 as against the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.46/1981 and the first
Appellate Court had set-aside the judgment and decree
passed in the suit and the matter was remanded to the Trial
Court to enable the defendants in the suit to file their written
statement and contest the suit. Thereafterwards, the
defendants had filed a written statement stating that they
shall not lay the road on the land of the plaintiff without
initiating acquisition proceedings or without paying adequate
compensation to the plaintiff. Based on the said written
statement filed by the defendants, the suit was once again
decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The said judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.46/1981 has
attained finality.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
spite of such a statement being made by the respondents
No.1 and 3 herein in their written statement pursuant to
which the decree was passed in O.S.No.46/1981, the
respondents No.1, 3 and 4 have utilized the petitioner's land
for the purpose of laying a road without acquiring the same
and without paying adequate compensation. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner had approached various
authorities and given representations to the authorities vide
Anneuxres 'K' and 'M'.
5. He submits that considering the representation
made by the petitioner the Deputy Commissioner had
directed the second respondent to look into the matter and
take appropriate action and in spite of such a communication
available on record, till date no action has been taken either
to acquire the land of the petitioner or to pay any
compensation to the petitioner. It is under these
circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 submits that the
representations which are produced at Annexures 'K' and 'M'
are of the year 2007 and 2008 respectively and the
subsequent representation given by the petitioner to the
Tahasildar is of the year 2015. He submits that petitioner
may be permitted to give a fresh representation to the
respondents No.1, 3 an 4 along with the copy of the order
passed in this petition and other necessary documents in
support of his title with regard to the land in question. On
filing of such representation, the Competent Authority will
consider the same as early as possible and necessary orders
will be passed.
7. Having regard to the said submission made by
the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondents No.1, 3 and 4, I am of the considered view that
this writ petition could be disposed of by giving necessary
direction to the Competent Authority. Accordingly, the
following :
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed.
The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation
to the respondents No.1, 3 an 4 along with the copy of the
order passed in this petition and other necessary documents
in support of his title with regard to the land in question
within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order and on receipt of such representation, the
respondents No.1, 3 and 4 are directed to consider the same
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of three
months thereafter.
In view of the disposal of main petition, IA.1/2021 does
not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
