-1,
In THE HIGH COURT or
cmcurr BENCH AT GULBARGF.-;. f V,
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF
BE3FC}RE:"*«. &
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE. MGVIEN R:§m>Y,
wrerr PE'I'I'I'ION NO~.C:4O664L/'B§}08
m'-wwmn: 'L
Manik Prabhu
Tq: H11mnab'?2;§L' Dist: Bidaj: 2
By its Pf(f{;1?C}i°1£i.' .
.. . . Petitioner
(By Advocate)
U _____ .. e
V L _'I'h:é of Karnataka,
V. 3:3y9'i:!i:S_ Sfxiretary,
' Revenue Departrnent,
M}S.'v1311iiding, Bangalore.
* s 2. Théz Special Land Acquisition Offlcer,
Upper Krishna Project,
V' " Bhimrayan Gudi,
Shahapur 'I'a_luk,
Dist: Gulbarga.
3. The Special Deputy Commissioner,
Upper Krishna Project, . a
5L*'*'\
-2-
fihimrayan Gudi,
Shahapur Taluk,
Dist: Gulbarga.
4. The General Manager,
Upper Krishna Pmject,
Nava Nagar, Bagalkot.
5. The Commissioner,
Upper Krishna Projetst, K _
Nava Nagar, Bagagcot. -
' ' 3 V Respondents
(By A'
"I"H:sfwR1*1*:::'r~E*rrrI--oN ISFILED UNDER ARTKJLES 226
Army 227. on C:QNS_'l'I--'I'UTI()N op' INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH' , THE' ~.V"oR{)_E?R, " 'PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDEN'I"-.DATED«--.__3U.{)5.2008 IN KRA.SAM.LAQ/SR-
18/91~9';i,_,PROE3U(1E£)«...I§S ANNEXURE-'V'.
jfiygs wié'IT.,P.:.aTzTI0N COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
. _ _;§;'§;Af€'§}'JG wis DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
petition though iisted for preliminary hearm’ g
A. w_.it:h’tlie consent of the: Ieamed counsel for the parties,
finally heard and disposed of: by this order.
2. The petitioner claims to be a religious
institution establishad in the year 1845 to prepagate
religious harmony, xxxanaging several educational
E,
%””\K
ix’
-3-
institutions such as orphanage, blind schooI’s hostel for
backward classes and minorities, and owner_”of
Sy. No. 615 measuring 6 acres 32
measuring 9 acres 36
acres 28 guntas and Sy._No. 8tV’4)’8fi;::=;’1s11VI.fingV’;1f’1
gLm1;as of Gogi village
district. According igftne the arcs-zsaid lands
were acquizegi by for construction
of the a preliminary
1991 followed by a final
r3o’tiiicVs’i.–ior;. 1993 and taking possession
“ir1vs;:1«’awaI’d dated 19.06.1993 of Special
V Dfficer in favour of Ehoodan Samiti.
.’ A oeiiioioher having noticed the award passed on the
basis 10:’ an incorrect entry in the revenue records, filed
‘ ~. application invoking Section 136 of the Land
Revenue Act 1964 to the Deputy Commissioner,
Gulbarga, who, after an enquiry, directed the Tahasildar
to make necessary corrections in revenue record of
M
..4..
rights to record the name of the petifioner as t}f;e_»ow11er
of the said properties. It is thereafter; “the
petitioner filed an application to the
Ofiieer am 18.01.2001 to pass:;’et2 a7.\:s*a1i;i
respect of the saici iandep
in response to which the by
endorsement éated:_’i~:3e. ttlvteitttvthere is no
provision to pay the petitioner.
This fiéftxeit in question in WP. No.
31S;?.[” Sfiigle Judge of the ?rineiple
Beach – by order dated 05.12.2005
Vtdireeted thus:
the circumstances, the writ
is allowed. A direction is issued to
u ~ Land Acquisition omcer to verify
whether the compensatiexa awarded has
been Withdrawn and if the same has not
been withdrawn, the Land Acquisition
Officer to consider the request of the
M
-5-
petitioner for making payment
aeeerdanee with law”.
3. It is assertion of the petitioner_.i}i.e11;’
Land Acquisition Officer fit)’
the diretrtiicn impelled t’he.__. (Cfifil)
No. 18/20()8, and wheneeL’L’t!:je d }Acquisition
Officer by order ds§te§:i rejected
the petitioner’s the contempt
‘I’1_1eWpetitio11er aggrieved by the
order dated’ “A. nnexure–‘V’ has presented this
petitien. V-
..__;}éi.:,'”eI;fr1:joubted1y, the order dated 05.12.2008 in
‘ /2002, extracted supra, directed the Land
Acqgexjie:-.ition Ofiicer to consider the request of the
V. _»_fi:%:titio;1er to make payment in accordance with law.
The Land Acquisition Officer ought to have complied
with the directien by considering the petitienefs
representation and either arrange far payment ta the
&§
:3
x.»
Corrected vide
Court crder
dtd.22.4.10
fl%?K&gQWM#*wfifi
(ABJ)
Correctedividei
Court ordeg~
dtd.22.4.1g’g””
(A333
._é3jii’;jt§(i;ic:;1tioIiV”‘of——£133 rights of the patitioner
-6.
petitisner or refer the dispute of ownershigfiibf Iafids
acquired under Section 31′) of Lami’
1894 ta the Civil Court fer aidjiidicatibfi to
decide the civil rights of .¢xaitii§ia£ioii
order impugned Zthé’ ‘}’;.€ii}(1_’§ACq1iiSitiOI}
Officer perused that the lands
subject mgt£¢r_ ‘acgi1i§*ii'{‘i§3.f:_1: ii Samithi
while set up a claim of
‘ii In my considered
opii”3.i_Q1’1,:_ “§p1;:ion for the Land Acquisition
Oifiicext the dispute tea the Civil Court for
over the
jr
‘ in accordance with Section of the
A ,:;én<1_AA;;q;iisit:on Act, 1394.
In the circumstances, the: order Annexure~'V' of
mg {and Acquisition Offieer recording a fmding that the
petitioner was not the owner of the acquired lands and
diserititled ta czeznpensation is without authority of law
3
IN
Corrected vide
Court order
dtd.
22.4.;o»_
(ABJ}
J-
and jurisdiction and is unstlstainabie. -4’i_T”1:d.S-«. i:?~_ the
reason, why the learned Single Judg=r:: 311%
referred to supra directed the”ASpex:i3,’1
Officer to consider the pefiiio13::f’s .111
accordance with law.
In the result allowed, the order
dated 30.05.2008 A;”2.?1:e::xt1;”;:”~V3V.’ ‘i_Sfizjéished. The Land
Acq1;isi.i:i.r§n44 :t§VVV’I*efer the petitioner’s
_ of j the lands in question for
deteIi}3_.ii’1atiOnéV bompetent Civii Court, under
we
Sgction 9f the Land Acquisition Act, in any event
‘ days from the date of receipt of a certified
._ §:§jf*.,§i~1§:${§rder.
Sd/-,1
Iudge