Honnamma and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Honnamma and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Feb 28, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/934652

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/934652
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Decided On: Feb 28, 2012
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 33734 to 33738 of 2011 (LA-RES)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Honnamma and Others

Advocate For the Petitioners: G.M. Sharath Kumar for M. Vinayakeerthy, Advocates. For the Respondents: K. Krishna, Government Advocate, Smt. Ramya H. for M.R.C. Ravi, Advocates.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and Others

Excerpt

.....2009 acquiring 30 acres 1 gunta instead of 41 acres 1 gunta. thus, the petitioners have made representation to issue acquisition notification in respect of remaining area of 11 acres also and to pay the compensation. since the same is not considered, these writ petitions are filed. 2. this is not a public interest litigation. the petitioners cannot represent other land losers. be that as it may, if respondent 4 had acquired mor area of land belonging to the petitioners than shown in the final notification, then, they will have to be paid compensation in respect of such excess land of which possession is taken. it is for the respondents to verify based on fact situation. after getting the land, which is taken possession of by the respondent, duly surveyed by the jurisdictional authorities, necessary decision has to be taken. since the representation filed by the petitioners is to be considered by the respondents, more particularly by the 4th respondent (i.e., the acquiring authority), this court does not wish to comment anything more on the merits of the matter. 3. suffice it to direct the respondents, more particularly the 4th respondent, to conduct survey of the lands acquired and verify as to whether the lands of the petitioners are acquired in excess of the area shown in the final notification and thereafter action shall be taken in accordance with law. the representation vide annexure-f filed by the petitioners in that behalf shall be considered as per law and in the light of the observations made above. writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. It is the case of the petitioners that certain of the lands are acquired by respondent 4 for the purpose of rehabilitating the displaced persons in Bhadra Project. The lands of the petitioners and other villagers of Karekatte Village were taken over by the Government under acquisition proceedings. According to the petitioners, the Government had taken possession of 13 acres 36 guntas belonging to the petitioners i.e. 3 acres 21 guntas in Survey No. 58/1P1 belonging to the first petitioner, 3 acres 19 guntas in Survey No. 56/1 belonging to the second petitioner, 3 acres 21 guntas in Survey No. 56/2 belonging to the third petitioner, 1 acre 22 acre guntas in Survey No. 57/1P2 belonging to the fourth petitioner and 1 acre 33 guntas in Survey No. 57/1P1 belonging to the fifth petitioner. However, the final notification came to be issued under Section 6(1)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 20^th July, 2009 acquiring 30 acres 1 gunta instead of 41 acres 1 gunta. Thus, the petitioners have made representation to issue acquisition notification in respect of remaining area of 11 acres also and to pay the compensation. Since the same is not considered, these writ petitions are filed.

2. This is not a public interest litigation. The petitioners cannot represent other land losers. Be that as it may, if respondent 4 had acquired mor area of land belonging to the petitioners than shown in the final notification, then, they will have to be paid compensation in respect of such excess land of which possession is taken. It is for the respondents to verify based on fact situation. After getting the land, which is taken possession of by the respondent, duly surveyed by the jurisdictional authorities, necessary decision has to be taken. Since the representation filed by the petitioners is to be considered by the respondents, more particularly by the 4^th respondent (i.e., the acquiring authority), this Court does not wish to comment anything more on the merits of the matter.

3. Suffice it to direct the respondents, more particularly the 4^th respondent, to conduct survey of the lands acquired and verify as to whether the lands of the petitioners are acquired in excess of the area shown in the final notification and thereafter action shall be taken in accordance with law. The representation vide Annexure-F filed by the petitioners in that behalf shall be considered as per law and in the light of the observations made above.

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2012 Same Parties Honnamma and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Mohan Shantanagoudar