Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K S HEMALEKHA
Byrappa, S/o. Doddabachhappa – Appellant
Versus
special land acquisition officer, karnataka industrial development board – Respondent
ORDER :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“a. To Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondents No.1, 4 and 5 to pay the compensation/award amount to the Petitioner along with 18% interest for acquisition of petitioner schedule land as per Right to fair and compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 in so for as the Petitioners schedule land is concerned.
b. To directed to initiate departmental enquiry against the Respondent No.1 and 5 for dereliction of duty, inaction and willfully failed to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner for acquisition his of schedule land.
c. To issue mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent and 1st Respondent to consider the Representation given by the Petitioner on 25.04.2011 and final representation 25.10.2021 as per the Annexure-D & H.
d. To Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble court deems fir under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 5. Perused the
The State must comply with due process for land acquisition and compensate fairly; failure to follow procedures amounts to a constitutional violation.
The landowners are entitled to just compensation at current market value when delays in awarding compensation are not due to their actions.
The duty to compensate upon land acquisition is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring no individual is deprived of property without legal due process and fair compensation, embodied in Article 300A.
The court held that delay does not negate the right to compensation for property unlawfully appropriated by the State, emphasizing the need for due process and just compensation under established law....
The obligation to pay compensation for land acquired for public purposes is a fundamental requirement under both statutory law and constitutional provisions, and failure to do so constitutes a violat....
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 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.
Subsequent purchasers of land can only claim compensation based on their vendors' titles and cannot challenge acquisition proceedings initiated under different statutes.
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
