IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION Nos.13255-13257/2018 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
2. KALEGOWDA, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
3. RAMEGOWDA, S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/OF BALLEKERE VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S. BHASKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., #10, H.L.B.C. SUB-DIVISION KIKKERI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571423.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.3-DIVISION, KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA, MYSORE-CHANNARAYAPATNA MAIN ROAD, HEMAVATHI EXTENSION, KRISHNARAJAPETE TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571426.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571401.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571401.
5. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KAVERI NERAVARI NIGAMA, ONTIKOPPAL, MYSORE – 570002.
6. CHIEF ENGINEER, KAVERI NERAVARI NIGAMA, GORURU, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573120.
7. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KAVERI NERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560009.
8. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E. S. INDIRESH, AGA FOR R3, R4 AND R8, SRI M. R. C. RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R5 TO R7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 AND 2 TO SUBMIT THE PROPOSALS FOR THE PAYMENT OF ALL KINDS OF COMPENSATIONS TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS, CROPS, HORTICULTURAL TREES AND OTHER DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND WITHOUT NOTIFICATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION; DIRECT R-3 AND 4 TO PAY THE ALL KINDS OF COMPENSATIONS TO THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS, CROPS, HORTICULTURAL TREES AND OTHER DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri S. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri E. S. Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.3, 4, and 8.
Sri M. R. C. Ravi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7.
2. These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to submit the proposals for payment of all kinds of compensations to the petitioners in respect of their lands, crops, horticultural trees and other damages from the date of taking possession of the lands. It is further submitted that without issuing any notification, land of the petitioners has been acquired and possession has been taken.
4. When these matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitions be disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation in view of acquisition of their lands.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in case the lands of the petitioners have been acquired, the action for the determination of the compensation in respect of the lands of the petitioners shall be taken in accordance with law.
6. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the petitions are disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of compensation by a speaking order within a period of two months from today.
7. Needless to state that in case competent authority finds that the lands of the petitioners have been acquired, the action for determination of the compensation in respect of the lands of the petitioners shall be taken in accordance with extant Rules.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE MD