JETHRUTHA W/O. LATE SRI. CHINNASWAMY REDDY Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition by a person, who is complaining that the Special Land Acquisition Officer is disregarding not only the directions issued by the State Government, but also with equal impunity disregarding the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of The Vyalikaval House Building Co -Op. Society by its Secretary Vs. V. Chandrappa and Others, AIR 2007 SC 1151 .

(2.) HOWEVER , submission of Sri. Jayadeva, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that while the writ Petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court having observed that such relief be granted to all similarly situated persons, it was the bounden duty of the State Government to have complied with such directions issued by the Supreme Court, and even when the State Government taking note of the directions issued by the Supreme Court had addressed a letter dated 5.2.2009, copy produced at Annexure -A to the petition, the 2nd Respondent - Land Acquisition Officer has been very inactive and keeping quiet, therefore, a writ of mandamus should be issued to activate 2nd Respondent to take some action, as per the interest of the Petitioner.

(3.) BE that as it may, even assuming that State Government has violated any order or a judgment of Supreme Court, it is always open to the affected person to approach the Supreme Court and seek for appropriate relief and even if the State Government as the highest authority in the State and undoubtedly superior authority over the Special Land Acquisition Officer - 2nd Respondent has written a letter directing the 2nd Respondent to act in accordance with law and there is any inaction on his part, it is for the State Government to look into that aspect, for taking corrective measures on such basis and the letter of the State Government addressed to its employee does not attain the status of a statutory provisions for seeking issue of a writ of mandamus. Therefore, on such assertions and such basis a writ of mandamus cannot be issued and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, it is open to the writ Petitioner to work out other remedies if any available in law elsewhere.