B.K. Amanulla Khan vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7680 Kant

                                               -1-




                                                           WP No. 2593 of 2022


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                                            BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2593 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   B.K. AMANULLA KHAN
                        S/O K.M. BURAN KHAN
                        AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                        R/AT NO. 1410, ISLAMPURA MOHALLA
                        CHANNAPATTANA TALUK
                        RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160

                   2.   NAZEER AHMED KHAN
                        S/O LATE GAFAR SAB
                        AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                        R/AT ISLAMPURA MOHALLA
                        CHANNAPATTANA TALUK
                        RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160

                   3.   N. AHMED KHAN
                        S/O LATE C.K. NIZAM KHAN
                        AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                        R/AT ISLAMPURA MOHALLA
                        CHANNAPATTANA TALUK
Digitally signed
                        RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562160
by                                                                ...PETITIONERS
NIRMALADEVI
Location: HIGH     (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
                   AND:


                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
                        M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

                   2.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                        RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
                        RAMANAGARA-562159
                                 -2-




                                             WP No. 2593 of 2022


3.   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
     LAND ACQUISITION
     RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

4.   COMMISSIONER
     RAMANAGARA-CHANNAPATTANA AUTHORITY
     RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
    SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. MAHENDRA.G, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
ORDER OF DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONERS
REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON 07.01.2020 AND 01.12.2021
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.
       THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                             ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order of direction as the case may be directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the petitioners representations made on 07.01.2020 and 01.12.2021 produced as Annexure-A and B.

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order of direction as the case may be directing the 3rd Respondent Authority to initiate proceedings under section 28A(1) of Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for higher compensation.

WP No. 2593 of 2022

c. Grant such other relief/s are deemed fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, to meet the ends of justice.

2. On enquiry, Sri. Pavan Chandra Shetty.H, learned

counsel for the petitioners submits that, no

application has been filed under section 28(A) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When no such

application has been filed, the relief of mandamus

which has been sought for by the petitioners cannot

be granted.

3. In view thereof, the writ petition stands dismissed

reserving liberty to petitioners to file necessary

application under section 28(A) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 in accordance with law and in

terms of the observations made in Judgment of this

Court in MSA No.200186/2019 dated 11.02.2021.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ln