Karnataka High Court
Sri. V. Basavaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
WP No. 42747 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 42747 OF 2016 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. V. BASAVARAJU,
S/O PUTTATHAYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A NO.1590, OUT HOUSE, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570 008.
2. SRI. VENKATARAJU,
S/O VENKATARAMANAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/A NO.1590, OUT HOUSE, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570 008.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
3. SMT. DODDAMMA,
W/O RAMAIAH,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
by SHARADA
VANI B R/A NO.1590, OUT HOUSE, 6TH CROSS,
Location: HIGH ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570 008.
COURT OF V.C.O DATED 08.02.2021 STANDS ABATED
KARNATAKA
4. SRI.V.THIRUMALA SWAMY,
S/O VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO.1590, OUT HOUSE, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570 008.
5. SMT. PUTTATHAYAMMA,
W/O VENKATARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/A NO.1599, 6TH CROSS,
-2-
WP No. 42747 of 2016
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570 008.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
6. SMT. DODDAMMA,
S/O CHIKKA KOOSA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/A NO.1598, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570 008.
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED.
7. SMT. SOUBHAGYA,
D/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO.1597, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM MYSORE-570 008.
8. SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA,
D/O LATE PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/A NO.1630, 8TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-08.
9. SRI.P.VENKATAIAH,
S/O PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A NO.1630, 8TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-08.
10. SMT. PUTTARATHNA,
D/O POOSAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/A NO.1601, 6TH CROSS,
ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-08.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA H .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTI STOREYED BUILDING,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-01.
-3-
WP No. 42747 of 2016
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DIST, MYSORE-08.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE-570 008.
4. THE J.S.S.MAHA VIDHYAPEETA,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
RAMANUJA ROAD, MYSORE-08.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED
BY R-3 DTD 23.2.2015 ANENXURE-E DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO ALLOTT ALTERNATE LANDS TO PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The essential grievance of the Petitioners who claim
to have lost their land in the acquisition process that
commenced with the issuance of Preliminary Notification
dated 22.05.1998 followed by Final Notification dated
24.06.1999 is against the Endorsement dated 23.02.2015
whereby their claim for allotment of alternative cites has
been rejected on the ground that there is no available land
earmarked for grant in terms of Tahsildar's Report dated
WP No. 42747 of 2016
24.12.2014. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was
absent when the matter was taken up for consideration.
Be that as it may.
2. Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents
opposes the Petition contending that a Coordinate Bench
in W.P. No.7466/2014 c/w W.P.no.32020 -28/2014
between SRI V BASAVARAJU vs. THE STATE & OTHERS,
disposed off on 25.08.2014 has specifically stipulated that
such claims would be considered provided that the lands
avail for grant; now no land availing as such, for the said
purpose, the impugned endorsement is unassailable.
3. Having heard the learned AGA and having
perused the Petition papers, this Court is broadly in
agreement with the submission made by the learned AGA
Paragraph Nos. 4 & 5 of BASAVARAJU, supra reads as
under:
"4. Be that as it may, what is necessary to be
noticed is that when the earlier batch of Writ
Petitions were disposed of by this court, this
Court had taken note of submission made on
behalf of State Government that if the
WP No. 42747 of 2016
petitioners would not make applications for
allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the
lands acquired, the State will consider their
applications on priority basis as provided in the
Land Grant Rules, subject to availability of land
for grant. In that view, a direction was issued
to consider the applications, if made in
accordance with law. Though I have noticed
that there is delay and latches in challenging
the notification, the said delay should not
defeat the claim of the petitioners to make an
appropriate application seeking allotment of
land. Since, in any event, consideration of the
same would be subject to the provision
contained in the Land Grant Rules and
availability of the land.
5. Therefore, in the instant petitions also the
petitioners are granted liberty to make such an
application to respondent No.3, who may
examine the aspect and thereafter pass
appropriate orders after obtaining necessary
sanction from the second respondent. The
decision in that regard shall be taken by
respondent Nos.2 and 3 in any expeditious
manner, but not later than four months from
the date on which the representation is made
by the petitioners."
Thus, the case of the Petitioners apparently does not
fit into the parameters prescribed by the judgment in
question, as rightly stated in the impugned Endorsement
and therefore, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners.
WP No. 42747 of 2016
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being
devoid of merits is liable to be rejected and accordingly it
is, costs having been made easy.
The Registry shall send a copy of this to the
Petitioners judgment by Speed Post immediately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv
