Karnataka High Court
Sri M Lakshmi Narayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20616-DB
WA No. 281 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 281 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI M. LAKSHMI NARAYANA
S/O LATE MUNI SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
2. SRI. M.C. MUNI KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKA SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE
NANDI HOBLI
Digitally CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK
signed by CHIKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 101.
SUMA B N
Location: ...APPELLANTS
High Court
of (BY SRI. ADINARAYANAPPA., ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20616-DB
WA No. 281 of 2023
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR AND PRESENTLY
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
CHICKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHICKABALLAPUR- 562 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK
CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
CHICKABALLAPUR - 562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAHENDRA AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) TO CALL FOR
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE
COURT IN WP No. 55454/2018 (LA-RES) AND AFTER PERUSING
THE RECORDS SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:03.01.2023
PASSED IN WP No.55454/2018 (LA-RES) PASSED BY THE
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND TO ALLOW THE
WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN
W.P. No. 55454-55/2018 (LA-RES) BEFORE THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT. ii) CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS MADE BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN LAQ SR 21/76-77 DATED:20.01.1977
AND GAZATTE NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 08.12.1977
(30.11.1977) VIDE RD 39 AQK 77 AS STOOD STATUTORILY
LAPSED AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE
LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. iii) ISSUE DIRECTIONS,
DECLARING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
GET IT CHANGED THE REVENUE RECORDS ILLEGALLY IN
RESPECT OF THE APPELLANTS PROPERTIES BY CLAIMING TO
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20616-DB
WA No. 281 of 2023
ENFORCE THE IMPUGNED ACQUISITION NOTIFICATION DATED
20.01.1977 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN LAQ SR 21/76-77
DATED:20.01.1977 WITHOUT INITIATING THE FRESH
NOTIFICATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER LAW. iv) TO ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL WITH COST AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER
SUITABLE RELEIFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO
GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellants.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated
03.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.55454/2018, the present appeal is filed.
3. The appeal revolves around a very limited
point. The submission of the petitioners before the learned
Single Judge in support of the prayer was that the
possession of the land of the subject property was not
taken by them. Learned Single Judge in paragraph 4 of the
impugned order was pleased to refer the relevant
provision, namely, Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
NC: 2023:KHC:20616-DB
WA No. 281 of 2023
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the
compliance of twin conditions by the petitioners i.e., that
the owner is not paid compensation and possession of the
property is not taken, must be established. In the present
case, the petitioners do not even dispute the
compensation is received as recorded in the endorsement
dated 27.06.2013. Insofar as second condition is
concerned, learned Single Judge observed that it would
remain beyond dispute that the petitioners predecessor-in-
title at an undisputed point in time, has acknowledged that
the subject properties are lost in acquisition, and with this
specific stand, it would not be open to the petitioners to
contend that the possession has not been taken.
4. The thrust on the point of possession was
by relying on certain revenue entries. Learned Single
Judge also dealt with that submission in following words;
in these circumstances, the petitioners cannot derive any
advantage from the continuation of the revenue entries,
NC: 2023:KHC:20616-DB
WA No. 281 of 2023
and especially when it is contended on behalf of the fifth
respondent that revenue entries have continued
notwithstanding the request for change only because of
the petitioners' objections based on the aforesaid
proceedings. Insofar as certain part in Sy.No.13/3
namely, 5 guntas and some part in Sy.No.1/4 namely 7
guntas, these small parcel of the lands were admittedly
not acquired. As such, learned Single Judge granted liberty
to the petitioner to approach the authorities by filing
necessary representation and further directed that if such
representation if filed by the petitioners, the jurisdictional
Tahsildar to effect necessary changes in RTC for subject
property within stipulated period of three weeks from the
date of the receipt of the copy of the order and disposed of
the petition.
5. We are unable to find any error committed
by the learned Single Judge either on the factual aspects
or on the provisions of law on which the petitioners were
revolving around, so as to cause indulgence or
NC: 2023:KHC:20616-DB
WA No. 281 of 2023
interference in the order of the learned Single Judge.
Appeal thus being merit-less, deserves to be dismissed
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RU
