GOLLALAPPA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court seeking that the representations dated 15.10.2013 and 20.01.2014 at Annexures - K and L be directed to be considered by the respondents and as per the request made therein, the petitioners be adequately compensated for utilisation of the lands belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioners in paragraph 1 of the petitions have referred to the details of the properties claimed to be owned by them in the different survey numbers measuring different extents. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents while forming the road from Yalagi to Malli have utilised the lands owned by the petitioners without following the due process of law to acquire the same and pay compensation to the petitioners. It is in that view, the petitioners claim that in view of the provision contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India, their right can be divested only by due process of law and not otherwise. It is in that view the petitioners further claim that for utilisation of the lands belonging to them for the purpose of formation of the road, they are entitled to be compensated. In that regard, since the representation as made by the petitioners had not received consideration by the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court seeking consideration of their representation.

(3.) HAVING noticed the endorsement filed on behalf of the respondents, in a normal circumstance the same ought to have been accepted as a consideration of the representation and rejection thereto. However, what is necessary to be noticed in the instant facts is that one of the similarly placed persons was before this Court in an earlier proceedings. This Court in W.P. No. 82219/2009 disposed of on 05.07.2011 had directed the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with law. The appeal filed by the respondents herein in WA No. 10253/2011 was dismissed by the order dated 08.10.2012. The respondents had preferred a Special Leave Petition which was registered in CC 13422/2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein certain observations were made and the petition filed by the respondents herein was dismissed. Though in the said proceedings, the petitioner therein had been granted the benefit by this Court, insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, at this stage, this Court cannot conclude as to whether the properties belonging to the petitioners has in fact been utilised by the respondents for formation of the road or as to whether a road already existed even prior to they had acquired the property. The endorsement as issued by the respondents is too vague as it does not determine the right of the petitioners as sought in the representation nor does it give any specific details of existence of the road. The endorsement only states that the roads in the region have been formed much earlier and therefore, the claim of the petitioners cannot be sustained.