IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10?" DAY OF DECEMBER
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI { Q
WRIT PETITION No.13s99~GF2oo7
BETWEEN:
1 SR} 11} NARAYANAPPA
SON OF LATE DYAVAPPA, '
AGED ABOUT 65 '(EARS _
R/OF JYOTHiPUP?E.'iEEL£JiGE V
BIDARAHALLI H0811 ,
BANGALORE EAST *rALLI:{'j* : "-j~...._'..PETIT'1ONER
{By Sri: S cHENNaRAYA.raEm)Y, P.}_"J3.r_'€}C2_X'IfE;
1 S?I£:€31AL DE-FL??? .C(3MMISSiONER
BANGALCERE '.?.._)ISTiii£3T
;'}:_(3.12osa~_a*_'>a '
~ BA;iz¥Gfi,LGRE--.9; 1111 H .
_V ASSISTANT CQMMISSIQNER
E$P,.NG-Ai;.Q}§E NORTH SUB DIVISION
* ._ , BAN_<Gg%.LQ'RE
3 SR1 H NARAYANAPPA
..s1'€_3 L&'I'E MUNIYAPPA
_ T BEONAQASANAPURA VILLAGE
' BIDARAI-IALL1 HOBLI
' BANGALORE EAST TALUK RESPONDENTS
°-{Eéy’$mt ; M’C.NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R4 85 R-2:
‘ _ }Sri.K.VARAPR’ASAi’.} Fate R-3)
TEES WP. FILED UNBER ARTICLES 236 S5 227 OF’ THE
CONSTETUTIONQF INDIA PRAYENG TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DT. 30.8’20{}E: PASSES’ BY THE R] VIBE ANX–E’. AND
ALLOW ‘THE SAID APPEAL,
This Writ: petition, Corning on for p1’e1i1.11’i1f1:a1;’y
hearing in ‘B’ group, this day, thc Court, ;;1;a.(it: jtht:i
following:
It is the case of the pet._’:_*;i011érv_’t11at L.
the land bearing Sy.No. 112 ‘2’«_;fa’Cvi’es §ituatv&d
at Jyothipura village, Bafiéfiiore East:
Taluk by virtzuepf mgstgixgd 27.1.1965.
The said V’ Crovenunent
in the a complaint by the
1’esp0ii*a:i&e1:”t}s’, C0mInissio11cr by virtue of
the ixnpifgzxéd that the alienation is bad and
‘~ _ i1″1..f .__of 313. ….. ..acqLfisiti0n held that the legal
of the original grantee are entitled to
¢0:fipensa{ii_nh. Being aggieved by the same, petitio11er
preferfed an appeal :0 the Deputy commissioner, The
was also rejected. Hence, the prescmt petiticn.
2. The leamed caunsel for the petitioner Sari.
C.Sh,a:akar Raddy submitted that petit;ioI;er having
purchased the land in the year 1965, acquisition has
WLW
taken place in the year 1993 which is an admitterifaet
and when once the land has been fige
question of ilfitiation ef proceedings tLt1a’;e§.§’1:jS(3g[S*If
PTCL does not arise for coneiA§ieztafi3(im’.*ee_ 1 He
submitted that the compe1:.$atioi”:.,_ flee v
received by him and is the
c011test;ing 1’espende1;s~3.r;’V:” application
before the Ass§et.a;3€ 1 ”
3. the pefitioner
and for respondent No.1 and
2 and ‘« »’1;eeVijende11t No.3 has remained
abee1’1″t.* ~
‘A «. vA«Ad,i:nittedly, the land has been acquired under
of the Land Acquisition Act by the
Geeernment in the yea}: 1993. The order of the
Aeeieteet Comzxzeissiener is dated 2.11.2061. Here
Ajgreeeediaag initiateci in the year 2000 i.e., 011 the date 01″
V ixlitiatien of the proceedings itself net only had the land
been acquired en behalf ef the Cent:ra1 Czevernment but
ee1npe1″1sa.t:i011 to that effect was also paid to the owner
VA”
of the land as on that date. ‘I’herefore, the ii1itiat;°lt)i1E.Of
the proceedings itself by the Assistant
void. Therefore, in View of the order of
C~O1}1II1iSSi0I}€1’ being void, the
the Deputy Commissioner does notsstaiid to”iah§{V_ree;.son u
and liable to be set aside.
5. In matters liiariiataka SC and
ST Act, the gaetee to claim
eompensartiohé’ riroxdded acquisition
has -i the pendeney of the
Dmceeohzgs SC allcl ST Act. In the
instjeafiti’ ~sase,”the__1a11d has been acquired much earlier
‘ to»the., of the proceedings itself. Therefore, in
H games or his legal representative
s;eii1i!;l””V11o.tii.b:e entitled to the compensation that has
it * heel} asiarded in. terms of the acquisition under the
‘ Acquisition Act.
6. For the aforesaid reasons the order dated
12.11.2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in
Case No.LND/SC.S’I’/29/1999-2000 and the order
Was
dated 30.8.2008 passed by the Deputy
in Case N0.SC.ST{A)39/2003-20(;)2;V are ” ” x
No costs.