Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S.HEMALEKHA
Raghavendra R.A., S/o. Late P. Rangappa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Department Of Commerce & Industries, Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claims rights over specific land. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents' objections highlight petitioner's lack of ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioner's contention regarding acquisition rights under kiad act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. discussion on agreement holder's rights in land acquisition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. registered documents required to confer title. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. summary of legal entitlements of agreement holders. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. analysis of the petitioner’s status as 'person interested' in compensation. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
ORDER :
K.S.HEMALEKHA, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Final Notification No.CI 112 SPQ 2024 dated 30.12.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 (Commerce & Industries Dept., GoK) under Section 28 (1) of the KIAD Act insofar as it pertains to the Petitioner’s land bearing Sy. No.208/1 (Old Sy.208), measuring 2 Acres 19 Guntas, of Hulikunte Village, Doddaballapura Taluk [ANNEXURE-K];
b) Declare that the acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act initiated vide the afo
An agreement holder without a registered title cannot challenge land acquisition proceedings or claim compensation under established law.
The State must comply with due process for land acquisition and compensate fairly; failure to follow procedures amounts to a constitutional violation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when complicated questions arise as regards entitlement and apportionment of compensation, the Collector should make a reference to the Court ....
The lack of consent from all landowners for compensation fixed by the Advisory Committee invalidates the agreement, resulting in the lapse of acquisition proceedings under the New LA Act.
A subsequent allottee, MRPL, cannot be considered a 'person interested' for the purpose of determination of compensation under the KIAD Act, 1966, and the decisions in UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (su....
Agreements to sell do not confer title or rights to claim compensation in land acquisition; only the recognized owner can challenge compensation decisions under the Land Acquisition Act.
Agreements to sell do not confer any interest in land, and thus do not entitle the holder to compensation post-acquisition, as per the Transfer of Property Act.
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
