AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. The first petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 12:P measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of Upparabeeranahalli Village, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur District. The second petitioner claims as the owner of land in Sy. No. 12:P measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of Upparabeeranahalli Village, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur District. Petitioners claim that the properties stand in their name as are reflected in the revenue records and have produced copies of the same along with the writ petition.
The respondents are said to have acquired lands at Kenchikoppa, Upparabeeranahalli, Doddakundur, Haruvanahalli, Baragenahalli, Shanthipura villages of Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikeri Taluk, Chickmagalur District for the purposes of Upper Bhadra Project and the owners of the land so acquired, have been paid compensation. A copy of the map showing the properties on which the channel would run, is produced as Annexure- "F" to the writ petition. It is claimed that according to the final notification and the map, the channel would run right over the properties of the petitioners, though they were not the subject matter of acquisition proceedings. It is this which is the primary grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners would contend that if their lands are to be utilised for the said project, that the same be acquired in accordance with law and the petitioners be paid compensation due to them.
The learned Government Pleader Shri K.S. Mallikarjunaiah, on instructions, would submit that the petitioners'' lands have not been acquired and are not the subject matter of acquisition and he would further deny that the channel runs over the petitioners'' lands. This is the bone of contention. If that be so, any interference with the petitioners'' lands would be illegal and the petitioners could seek appropriate protection before a Civil Court.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioners would interject to submit that since there are no pleadings of the respondents before this Court in writing, the statement made by the learned Government Pleader may not bind the State Government.
However, it is reiterated by the Government Pleader that he has made this statement with reference to the parawise remarks received from the competent authority and a copy of the same is placed on record. This would meet the requirement of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even in a formal suit.
The petition therefore is disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioners and they may seek appropriate protection before a Civil Court.