SHRIPATHI RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows:

(3.) HOWEVER , it is to be noticed that the sequence of events would indicate that though the land was subject to acquisition of the year 2008, the actual possession is said to have been taken in the year 2009. Assuming that the petitioner had lost possession of the land in question in the year 2009, the standing trees and other plants on the property would have been subjected to deterioration for want of maintenance and upkeep. Therefore, any reports generated thereafter would necessarily indicate a lower value of the plants and trees. This has been proven by the fact that the Deputy Director, in his letter annexing the final report dated 13.7.2011, has himself indicated that it may not be advisable to obtain reports, which are much delayed when the lands in question are not maintained and therefore, there is a possibility of reduction in the number of plants and deterioration of the entire plant and tree growth considerably reducing the value thereof. This aspect of the matter is sought to be glossed over in the exercise of the KIADB having called for reports time and again, notwithstanding the lapse of time and without regard to the deterioration of the value of the trees and plants over time. Hence, it is in the interest of justice that the delay in considering the case of the petitioner being attributable to the extreme suspicion harboured by the KIADB, which has not been brought to its logical conclusion. The mere suspicion that the pepper plants, which were shown in the valuation report were not reflected in the mahazar, on taking of possession, could not be the basis on which the KIADB has proceeded to act with such extreme suspicion. It is quite possible that the mahazar was drawn up by the officers, who did not even recognize a pepper plant, which is a creeper and may have been completely ignored, irrespective of the fact that it carried a great value. As indicated in the reports, the pepper plants were valued at Rs.15,28,228.00 and possibly on the ignorance of the officials, who drew up the mahazar, this is a possibility and therefore, the repeated reports being called for, was wholly an unnecessary exercise and any suspicion as regards the collusion between the officer, who has filed his valuation report in the first instance and the petitioner, has not been taken to its logical conclusion.