IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.24991/2018 (LA - KHB) Between:
Smt. Mallamma, W/o late Kargappa, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/at Bhyalalu Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Tal: Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District – 562 130.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, Advocate for Smt. Sukanya H.D., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 01.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bengaluru – 560 009.
3. The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bengaluru – 560 009.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore – 560 003.
(By Sri. E.S.Indiresh, AGA for R1 & R4;
...Respondents Sri. H.N.Manjunath, Advocate for R2 and R3 (Absent)) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned endorsement issued by R-1 dated 12.03.2018 is produced at Annexure- B and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, learned Counsel for Smt. H.D. Sukanya, for the petitioner.
Sri. E.S. Indiresh, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents No.1 & 4.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.03.2018, by which application filed by the petitioner seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for short) has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the time limit.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award was passed on 12.01.2015. However, the same was communicated to the petitioner on 02.01.2018 and thereafter the application under Section 18 of the Act was filed on 06.01.2018. Thus, the application was filed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the award. However, respondent No.2 has rejected the aforesaid application i.e., the impugned order on the ground that the same is belated.
4. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from vices of non-application of mind, inasmuch as no reason has been assigned.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, after going through the impugned order dated 12.03.2018, have pointed out that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 18 (1) of the Act has been rejected on the ground that the same is belated.
7. In view of the fact that no reasons have been assigned by respondent No.2 for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner and the fact that, as to whether the petitioner has received a copy of the award has also not been ascertained, the impugned order dated 12.03.2018 is hereby quashed and respondent No.2 is directed to decide the matter afresh within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Psg* Sd/- JUDGE