CHIKKAMMA Vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the subject property on the basis of Assistant Commissioner's order in RTS Appeal, disposed off on 30/6/2017 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court complaining against the acquisition of the subject property essentially on the ground that she being the true owner of the property herself, the Notifications issued in the name of some one else are illegal and at least, compensation ought to have been given to her. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that right to property having been constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300A , taking property without paying compensation is not justifiable in the light of decision of the Apex Court in K.T Plantation vs. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the Respondent - State and the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent - KIADB oppose the Petition contending that the acquisition is of the year 2008; the Statutory Notifications were issued in the name of khathedar who is not the Petitioner; the award passed on 24/12/2011 and compensation in all, a sum of Rs.53,60,000.00 has already been paid to the khathedars account; possession has been taken over on 27/7/2010; in fact, Petitioner's Civil Suit in O.S.No.572/2015 challenging the acquisition has also been dismissed on 19/10/2022. Therefore, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with submission made on behalf of the Respondents, more particularly in the light of certain observations made by the Trial Judge in the subject suit. In both the Preliminary Notification dtd. 29/1/2008 issued under Sec. 28(1) of the 1966 Act and Final Notification dtd. 27/5/2010 issue under Sec. 28(4), Petitioner's name did not figure as khathedar in the Property Records, even thereafter i.e., at the time of passing the award, taking of possession and making payment of compensation too, Petitioner's name did not figure in the Property Records. In fact, she had filed an RTS Appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 only in April 2014 which came to be favoured by the Assistant Commissioner on 30/6/2017 on the basis of which for the first time Petitioner's name gained entry to the Property Records. That being the position, the acquisition process cannot be faltered even in the least.