ASHWINI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non- consideration of her representation for the payment of compensation in respect of the land acquired under the provisions of Sec. 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Saguvali Chit has been issued to his client on 5/7/2019 in terms of Regularization Committee order dtd. 4/2/2004, she becomes prima facie title holder of the land in question and therefore, compensation needs to be paid to her, and to none other.

(2.) Learned Additional Government Advocate appears for respondent No.1. Learned Panel counsel appearing for respondent No.2 oppose the petition contending that ordinarily the compensation is paid to the persons whose names do figure in the Preliminary & Final Notifications issued under the provisions of 1966 Act, subject to all just exceptions. Having so contended, now he agrees to instruct his clients to consider petitioner's representation, in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. This is really appreciable.

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 17/4/2023 had directed personal presence of the Tahsildar to offer explanation as to why the Saguvali Chit of the kind has been issued after the Final Notification was issued by the Government under Sec. 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Act, 1966. The Tahsildar Sri Shivaraj having religiously complied with the order has appeared before the Court and offered plausible explanation that, the issuance of Saguvali Chit is in terms of the Regularization Committee order dated 04. 02.2004. Therefore, no fault could be found with the Tahsildar at all. In view of the above, the petition is disposed off prescribing a period of three months for consideration of the representation and also to inform the result of such consideration to the petitioner. If delay is brooked, heavy cost may be levied on the erring official if any application in this regard is moved. It is open to the KIADB to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner as are required for the due consideration of the subject claim for payment of compensation. However, in the guise of such solicitation, delay shall not be brooked. All contentions are kept open. Now, no costs.