Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1346 (KAR)

Abdul Khadir v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-19

B.A.PATIL, BELLUNKE A.S.

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.A. Patil, J. This intra court appeal is preferred by the appellant-petitioner challenging the order passed in W.P. 64131/2009 (LA-RES), dated 04.04.2018. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 3. 3. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of the land bearing R.S. No.13/1 of Doddanayakanakoppa, Dharwad measuring 03 acres 10 guntas. It is further contended that the respondent No.2 acquired the said land for formation of a layout by issuing notification under Section 17(1) of Karnataka Urban Development Act and thereafter a final notification was also came to be ordered. 4. It is the further case of the appellant-petitioner that he submitted the representation to respondent No.2 to drop his land from acquisition, wherein a resolution was passed to the effect that about 01 Acre 10 guntas has been dropped from the acquisition. So what had been acquired was only 2 acres of land. The present appellant challenging the acquisition has filed a writ petition. 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts that the final notification to acquiring the lands was issued as far as back as in the year 1992 and the award was passed on 21.07.1997 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2009. There was in ordinate delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings. No proper explanation has been offered and as such, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court. 6. It is his contention that while considering the delay the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the fact that earlier survey number was not properly mentioned and he approached the revenue authorities and filed the suit and thereafter the said civil petition was filed for claiming appropriate relief. He further contended that though the land acquired is only to the extent of 02 acres, but the revenue records shows that 03 acres 10 guntas has been acquired and common entries has been re-mutated for the entire land. Thereby the appellant is going to be deprived to the extent of 01acre 10 guntas. This fact has not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition. He further submitted that even he has not received the compensation for the land which has been acquired by respondent No.2. 7. Thereby the appellant is going to be deprived to the extent of 01acre 10 guntas. This fact has not been properly considered by the learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition. He further submitted that even he has not received the compensation for the land which has been acquired by respondent No.2. 7. It is his further contention that till today he is in possession. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the acquisition is of the year 1992 as the award passed on 21.07.1997. There is inordinate delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge after considering all the facts and circumstances has rightly dismissed the writ petition. There are no good grounds to allow the appeal. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the appeal. 9. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels and perused the records. 10. As could be seen from the copy of the writ petition, which has been made available along with the writ appeal, the prayer that has been made is to quash the acquisition proceedings in respect of R.S. No.13/1 of Doddanayakanakoppa, Dharwad circle measuring 03 acres 10guntas, award dated 21.07.1997. When it is the specific contention of the appellant that the land acquired was only to the extent of 02 acres and in the revenue entries and in the other records they are wrongly mentioned that the entire land has been acquired and thereby he is deprived only to the extent of 01 acres 10 guntas. The same has not been acquired and subsequently after filing of the writ appeal mutation entries have also been done. The prayer which has been prayed in the writ petition itself is not proper and under such circumstances writ petition is liable to be dismissed and coupled with it there is delay in challenging the acquisition proceedings. The appellant cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings, the relief was not that which has been sought in the writ petition. Under the said facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that looking from any angle, the appellant has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge and the same is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. 11. Under the said facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that looking from any angle, the appellant has not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge and the same is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. 11. However, by looking into the records which has been made available by the appellant, it indicates that acquired land was only to the extent of 02 acres, and 01 acre 10 guntas has been left out. The above observations are made while dismissing the appeal, and the same will not come in the way of the appellant where the suitable remedy is availed with due process of law. Appeal is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main appeal I.A. No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is disposed.