"Agency Of State Cannot Act Irresponsibly By Not Awarding Rightful Claim"- Karnataka HC Reiterates In Land Dispute

A Karnataka High Court Bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur has reiterated that an agency of the State cannot act irresponsibly by not awarding compensation against a rightful claim.

In that context, the Court had said that, "The respondent being an agency of the State cannot act irresponsibly by not awarding compensation to the petitioner for the rightful claim which existed with him prior to the demolition of his property."

Counsel Sourabh Hegde and Counsel Shreevatsa Hegde appeared for the petitioner, while Counsel Aravind D Kulkarni and HCGP Ramesh Chigari appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to execute a proper deed of conveyance with respect to a piece of land, and a further direction to expedite the process.

The petitioner stated that on illegally having demolished the property, the respondents provided an alternate site, and the petitioner put up a house for construction. However, the respondents failed to execute a proper deed of conveyance as was agreed earlier.

The respondent side contended that the property allotted in favour of the petitioner was on lease cum sale basis and it was not absolute ownership. In accordance with Section 176 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, it was contended that no property can be transferred or disposed of by sale or by any other transfer except with the previous sanction of the Government.

The Court noted that Article 300A of the Constitution of India mandates that persons must not be deprived of property, save by authority of law. With that background, the Court observed that, "the right of the petitioner with regard to his property which was in his absolute ownership is constitutionally valid under Article 300A and the constitutional right cannot be deprived of by authority, even if it is an agency of the State, by demolishing the same depriving the right of the petitioner for peaceful enjoyment of his property, without suitable compensation or an alternative site absolutely in favour of the petitioner."

The Court also observed that the respondents had conveniently demolished the property belonging to the petitioner, and had failed to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner either for the property which is given on lease cum sale or any other suitable property of similar dimension which was deprived of to the petitioner.

Subsequently, the Court held that "it is the duty cast upon respondent No.1 to allot and convey by deed of conveyance by a registered deed of ownership in favour of the petitioner, the already allotted plot as mentioned hereinabove, in view of the fact that the petitioner in anticipation of the plot being allotted by way of a conveyance deed, has already put up a house in the said plot."

In light of the same, the petition was allowed by the High Court.

Cause Title: Narayan v. The Commissioner, Corporation of City of Belagavi & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Judgment