Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S. KAMAL
C. Bhaskaran S/o Late P.K. Paniker – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order Quashing notification bearing No. CI255SPQ2001(P) dated 9.2.2004 under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act, ANNEXURE B and final notification No.CI:126:SPQ: 2005 dated 19.12.2005 under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act ANNEXURE-D.
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing allotment letter bearing No. IADB/HO/Allot/Secy/1540-SUC/16093/ 14-15 dated 10.3.2015 ANNEXURE-Q and the possession certificate bearing No. IADB/DO/-2/2336/2015-16 dated 25.1.2016 and consequently direct the Respondent 2 to 4 to hand over possession of item No. 1,2,and 4 of the scheduled properties and direct respondent 2 and 3 to hand over possession of item No. 3 of schedule property.
(ii)(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order Quashing General Award dated 05.02.2018 and dated 22.08.2023 Annexure T and U passed by the respondent No.3.
(iii) Grant such other and further relief as just in the interest of justice.
2. Necessary to note that though the Petitioners originally filed the above writ petition seeking quash of preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 and t
Legal authorities must conduct proper inquiries and provide fair compensation during land acquisitions, ensuring all interested parties are notified and allowed to contest.
The court ruled that the State Land Acquisition Officer cannot shift the date for determining compensation; only higher courts possess that authority under Articles 32/142 of the Constitution.
The landowners are entitled to just compensation at current market value when delays in awarding compensation are not due to their actions.
The right to property under Article 300A must be upheld through due legal processes; unlawful dispossession by state authorities mandates compensation per statutory requirements.
The State must comply with due process for land acquisition and compensate fairly; failure to follow procedures amounts to a constitutional violation.
The judgment emphasizes that lapsing provision under Section 11A does not apply to acquisitions made by Nagpur Improvement Trust under NIT Act, while also highlighting entitlement to compensation for....
Compulsory acquisition of land – If any individual is to be divested or deprived of said right by State, it ought not be done without giving compensation in accordance with law for land so acquired f....
A legal heir is entitled to claimed compensation based on promises made by land acquisition authorities, regardless of significant delay, emphasizing principles of equity and promissory estoppel.
The court affirmed that delays in filing compensation claims under the Land Acquisition Act can be overlooked in favor of equitable treatment, preserving citizens' property rights under Article 300A.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
