IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1645 OF 2016 (KLR-LG) Between:
B.V.Deepak S/o Late B.T.Vasudeva Aged about 35 years Echikare, B.H.Kaimara Post N.R.Pura Tq. – 577 134 Chickmagalur Dist. ... Appellant (By Sri.Gopal Bilalmane, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Rep. by Secretary to Revenue Department 6th Floor, M.S.Building Bengaluru – 560 001 2. The Deputy Commissioner Chickmagalur – 577 101 Chickmagalur Dist.
3. The Assistance Commissioner Tharikari Taluk – 577 228 Chickmagalur Dist.
4. The Tahsildar N.R.Pura Taluk N.R.Pura – 577 134 Chickmagalur Dist. ... Respondents (By Sri.V.Sreenidhi, Additional Government Advocate) ---
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, praying to allow the Writ Petition No.24351/2012 dated 5.10.2015, insofar as it relates grants of remaining extents of 9 acres and 8 guntas alternative land in survey No.32/2, Susalavani, N.R.Pura, or any other land near by village their by allow this writ appeal, and etc.
This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Chief Justice delivered the following:
JUDGMENT Mr.V.Sreenidhi, learned additional government advocate, appears for all the respondents.
2. It is contended by the writ petitioner - appellant that his lands were acquired for a particular project and under the scheme, he is entitled to alternative lands.
3. The alternative lands are to be identified after giving opportunity to the writ petitioner.
4. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur district, within a period of two weeks, ventilating his grievance.
5. If such a representation is made, the said Deputy Commissioner shall pass a speaking and reasoned order, within a period of two months, after giving opportunities of hearing to all concerned in the matter.
6. In view of disposal of this appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, disposed of.
7. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB