LAWS(KAR)-2022-11-849

B. M. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO Vs. P.RAVI KUMAR

Decided On November 16, 2022
B. M. Lakshminarayana Rao Appellant
V/S
P.Ravi Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioners is of non- compliance of the order of this Court dtd. 26/9/2019 in W.P.No.15498/2009.

(2.) In paragraph 5 of the order dtd. 26/9/2019, the Division Bench was pleased to refer to the judgment of this Court and then directed the Tahsildar to determine the compensation payable to the erstwhile land owners under Sec. 47 read with 48-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) A perusal of the affidavit and the annexures show that soon after the order was passed by this Court, due to unfortunate situation i.e. the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, there was a national lock down declared and all the activities were put to as good as stand still. Subsequently, when there was ease in the situation, the respondent immediately submitted proposal to his superior. His superior, in turn, submitted to his superior. This exchange of communication between the parties is reflected in the communication. The proposal moved from the Tahsildar and finally reached the Secretary. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department. The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department by communication dtd. 18/11/2021 made a reference to all the relevant facts and then by taking reference to the provision viz. Sec. 47 of the Act, particularly Sec. 47(4) of the Act, the Secretary informed the Tahsildar that the amount payable to the petitioner cannot exceed Rs.2,00,000.00. In turn, the Tahsildar passed an endorsement on 28/2/2022. Thus, now the order of this Court is duly complied with. The reasons are also assigned for arriving at the conclusion particularly, by the Additional Chief Secretary and then, the Tahsildar in his endorsement. The aspect of delay is also taken care of by submitting justifiable explanation. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent-authorities, he is at liberty to challenge the decision before the Competent appropriate forum, if so advised.