Case Note & Summary
The State of Karnataka and its authorities appealed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka dated 26.09.2013 in Writ Petition No.22961/2011. The Single Judge had issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and settle compensation in accordance with law for the benefit of respondent No.1, Smt. T. Jayamma. The facts were undisputed: the land belonging to respondent No.1 was situated within 10 to 20 meters adjoining the fort of Srirangapatna, which is a protected monument under the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961. By notification dated 10.03.1998, the State had declared the area as a protected area. The respondent No.1 had been deprived of the use of her land since the notification, and the State had not initiated any acquisition proceedings or paid compensation. The legal issue was whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the State to acquire land. The appellants argued that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, as the notification was issued in 1998 and the petition was filed in 2011. The court held that the State cannot be compelled to acquire land, but where the State has taken possession and used the land for public purpose, it must pay compensation. The court found that the respondent No.1 had been deprived of her land for over a decade without compensation, and the State's inaction justified the issuance of mandamus. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order and directing the State to initiate acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Mandamus - Land Acquisition - Direction to initiate acquisition proceedings - The court considered whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the State to initiate acquisition proceedings for land adjoining a protected monument - Held that the State cannot be compelled to acquire land, but where the State has taken possession and used the land for public purpose, it must pay compensation - The court directed the State to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and settle compensation (Paras 1-3).
B) Limitation - Delay and Laches - Writ Petition - The court considered whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches - Held that the petition was filed within a reasonable time after the cause of action arose, and the State's conduct in not taking action for years cannot be used to defeat the petitioner's claim (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State can be directed by mandamus to initiate acquisition proceedings for land adjoining a protected monument, and whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.09.2013 in Writ Petition No.22961/2011 is upheld. The appellants are directed to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and settle compensation in accordance with law for the benefit of respondent No.1.
Law Points
- Mandamus
- Land Acquisition
- Protected Monument
- Right to Property
- Compensation
- Delay
- Laches
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (09) 24
Writ Appeal No.2292/2014 (GM-RES)
D.H. Waghela, Chief Justice, Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.
Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, AG a/w Sri R Devdas, Prl.G.A. & Smt. Shweta Krishnappa, HCGP for appellants; Sri Kiran C.V., Adv., for Sri Deshraj & Sri P. Changalaraya Reddy, Advs., for R-1; R-2 served
The State of Karnataka, The Secretary to Government, Department of Kannada and Culture, The Under Secretary to Government, Department of Kannada and Culture (Administrative and Kannada Section), The Director, Office of Directorate of Archeology, The Assistant Curator and Assistant Archeologist
Smt. T. Jayamma, The Town Municipal Council, Srirangapatna
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against order of Single Judge issuing mandamus to initiate land acquisition proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the order of the Single Judge directing them to initiate acquisition proceedings and settle compensation.
Filing Reason
The State and its authorities appealed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.09.2013 in Writ Petition No.22961/2011.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge had issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and settle compensation for respondent No.1.
Issues
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the State to initiate acquisition proceedings for land adjoining a protected monument?
Whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches?
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches as the notification was issued in 1998 and the petition was filed in 2011.
The respondent No.1 contended that she had been deprived of her land without compensation for over a decade.
Ratio Decidendi
The State cannot be compelled to acquire land, but where the State has taken possession and used the land for public purpose, it must pay compensation. Delay and laches cannot be used to defeat a claim for compensation when the State has not taken action for years.
Judgment Excerpts
The State Government and its authorities are in appeal to challenge order dated 26.09.2013 of learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.22961/2011, whereby a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the appellants herein to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and settle the compensation in accordance with law for the benefit of respondent No.1 herein.
There is no dispute about the facts that the land belonging to respondent No.1 is situated within an area of 10 to 20 meters adjoining the fort of Srirangapatna, which is a protected monument as per the notification issued by the State Government, under the provisions of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961.
Procedural History
The respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.22961/2011 before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a direction to the State to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay compensation for her land adjoining the Srirangapatna Fort. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on 26.09.2013, issuing a writ of mandamus. The State and its authorities filed the present Writ Appeal No.2292/2014 on an unspecified date, challenging that order. The appeal was heard and disposed of on 10.09.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
- Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961:
- Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
