IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.5355 OF 2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI N.KENDAGANNAPPA SON OF LATE SRI NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT ANTHARASANTHE VILLAGE H.D. KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 114.
(BY SRI:C.R.GOPALASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
... APPELLANT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 001.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 001.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KABINI RESERVOIR PROJECT MYSURU DISTRICT-570 001.
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KABINI RESERVOIR PROJECT MYSURU DIVISION MYSURU-570 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT:N.ANITHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.7481 OF 2015 (LA-RES) DATED 23.07.2015.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.7481 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge in relegating the petitioner to the competent Civil Court, the writ petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his land bearing Survey No.9 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Antharasanthe Village, H.D.Kote Taluk, Mysuru District, was taken over by the fourth respondent therein for construction of a water channel. Compensation has not been paid. There is no award passed. Hence, he approached the respondents for relief. The same was rejected by the impugned endorsement. Questioning the same, the instant petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. It was contended that the sketch prepared by the surveyor indicates that the land was put to use for the formation of water channel. However, the same was disputed by the State. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held that in case the petitioner is deprived of the land for the last 15 years, he would be well advised to approach the competent Civil Court for damages etc., 3. Presently, an affidavit is filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kabini Reservoir Project, Mysuru, stating that the land as claimed by the appellant even though was initially sought to be acquired for the construction of ‘Taraka Right Bank Canal’, was subsequently deleted from the acquisition and a notification was also issued in this regard. Therefore, the land of the appellant has not been used for the construction of water channel nor any of the respondents have taken the land of the appellant. That the appellant continues to be in possession of the same. In view of the affidavit filed, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The affidavit would indicate that the land continues to be under the ownership and possession of the appellant. In terms of the affidavit, if the appellant so desires, is at liberty to deal with it in the manner known to law.
Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-