HANUMANTHA RAO GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the Petitioner is as to acquisition of the subject property without due process. Learned counsel for the Petitioner heavily banks upon Article 300A of the Constitution as interpreted by the Apex Court in K.T PLANTATION vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2011) 9 SCC 1. She also relies upon P. G. BELLIAPPA vs. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 2019 (3) Kar.LJ 795 and argues that where a citizen's property is knocked away by the State without due process of law which necessarily includes payment of compensation or public purpose, the property should be restored in lieu thereof recompense has to be made. She also adds that despite there being a mandamus in the earlier round of litigation, nothing much has yielded to the hands of her client there being inadequate consideration of the material produced by him when the consideration took place at the hands of Respondent-Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the State and its officials and the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Court Registry oppose the Petition contending that whether one holds title to the property or not, ordinarily cannot be a subject matter of adjudication at the hands of Writ Court; parties at loggerheads have to lead both oral & documentary evidence, to prove their version; all property is presumed to belong to the State unless the contra is proved by cogent evidence. No material worth mentioning having been placed on record by the Petitioner, no relief can be granted in Writ Jurisdiction.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence as under and for the following reasons: