Karnataka High Court
Bagalkot Cement And Industries Limited ... vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3979
WP No. 101551 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.101551 OF 2025 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
BAGALKOT CEMENT AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
BAGALKOT, (AN ASSIGNEE OF BAGALKOT UDYOG
LIMITED) A COMPANY INCORORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
6TH FLOOR, BLOCK NO.1, STADIUM HOUSE,
VEER NARIMAN ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400020,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MANAGER-LEGAL
MR. ABBAS RAJESAB NIDASESHI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER (LEGAL),
R/O. BAGALKOT-587111.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
DHARWAD
BENCH
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UKP, BAGALKOTE-587101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE-587101.
3. RAVI S/O. SHANKAR BASANNAVAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O. BAGALKOTE-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3979
WP No. 101551 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD BEARING LAC NO.748/2019 DATED 05.12.2024 ON THE FILE
II ADDITIONAL DIST. JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOTE, A
COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-J
AND J1; ISSUE APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 NOT TO RECEIVE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
AWARDED IN LAC NO.748/2019 DATED 05.12.2024 ON THE FILE II
ADDITIONAL DIST. JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOTE, AS
PER ANNEXURES-J AND J1 TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPORTIONMENT
PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF FILE II ADDL DIST JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BAGALKOTE, IN LAC NO.216/2019 AS
PER ANNEXURE-H; ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION AS IT WOULD DEEMED FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts
notice for respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner
is before this Court seeking for the following
reliefs:
a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing
the impugned judgment and Award bearing LAC
No.748/2019 dated 05.12.2024 on the file II
Additional Dist. Judge and Additional land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Bagalkote, a copies of which are
produced herein as per Annexure-J And J1;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3979
b) Issue appropriate order/direction, directing the
Respondent No.3 not to receive the Compensation
amount awarded in LAC No.748/2019 dated
05.12.2024 on the file II Additional Dist. Judge
and Additional Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority, Bagalkote, as per
Annexures-J and J1 till disposal of the
apportionment proceedings pending on the file of
file II Addl Dist Judge and Additional Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Bagalkote, in LAC No.216/2019 as per
Annexure-H;
c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction
as it would deemed fit and proper under the
circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner claiming to be lessee of the father of
respondent No.3 is claiming that the petitioner is
entitled for compensation on account of the acquisition
of the land subject matter of the lease and as such,
the reference having been filed for apportionment
without any orders being passed thereon, respondent
No.3 is now proposing to withdraw the monies in
deposit.
3. An enquiry with the counsel for the petitioner if there
is any sale deed, which has been executed in favour of
the petitioner, he submits that it is only a lease deed.
If there is a lease alone, which has been executed in
favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is only lessee
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3979
and cannot seek to substitute the owner while claiming
for compensation.
4. In that view of the matter the petitioner cannot come
in the way of the respondent-owner withdrawing the
compensation amount on account of the acquisition of
his property.
5. No grounds being made out, the petition stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
AM
CT-MCK
