M. RAMANATHA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.10.2013 impugned at Annexure -H to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to the respondents to pay the amount as resolved in the meeting held by respondent No. 2 on 27.05.2011 with the land owners at the rate of Rs. 930/ - per sq.ft.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 6 guntas in Sy. No. 101/1 of Kallahalli village which is said to have been utilized by the respondents for widening of the road from Kuvempu road via Microwave station upto Thunganala. In view of the urgency involved, the respondents are stated to have negotiated with the land owners to agree upon a price and to utilize the said lands. The petitioner in that regard is relying on the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure -F) wherein the Deputy Commissioner on taking note of the land value subsisting for residential purpose as well as the commercial purpose has ultimately decided the value payable at Rs. 930/ - per sq.ft. The petitioner is therefore seeking payment of the compensation at the said rate. The petitioner has also relied on the agreement -cum -sale deed dated 27.06.2012 at Annexure -G to the petition to contend that another extent of land belonging to the petitioner which has been utilized has been considered in such manner and the compensation at Rs. 930/ - per sq.ft. has been granted towards 4628 sq.ft. in the very same Sy. No. 101/3 of Kallahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. The petitioner claiming compensation in respect of the remaining 6 guntas had made a representation, but by the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 at Annexure -H, the Deputy Commissioner has indicated that the compensation can only be paid by reckoning the same at Rs. 12,35,000/ - per acre and the commensurate amount for 6 guntas at Rs. 1,85,250/ - would be paid. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by such decision of the respondents is before this Court.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 has also filed its objection statement. Though essentially the question of payment of compensation and the rate at which it is payable is between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 3, respondent No. 4 has however contended that at an earlier point, there was a resolution passed by respondent No. 4 with regard to utilization of the subject 6 guntas of land as a part of the graveyard measuring about 2 acres 18 guntas. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner had also addressed a letter agreeing to gift the land to respondent No. 4 for the said purpose and therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim compensation for the said extent of 6 guntas which could have been utilized by respondent No. 4 as a part of the graveyard if it was not utilised for the road. Hence, the respondents seek to resist the claim made by the petitioner and pray for dismissal of the petition.