TITLE: SRI NANJUNDAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CITATION: WRIT APPEAL 1174/2022
DECIDED ON: 17 JANUARY 2024
CORAM: CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
Facts of the Case
The case involves an intra-court Appeal challenging a Single Judge’s order dated 14.09.2022, which denied the request for compensation in relation to Appellants’ W.P.No.38241/2015 (LA-KIADB) concerning the taking of a specific land. The Single Judge found that the land in question had been granted to the ancestors of the petitioners for the sole purpose of growing trees, and the ownership of the land was retained by the Government. The dispute centered around the Appellants’ claim for compensation after their request for payment concerning the subject-land was negatived.
Legal Provisions:
The court considered the constitutional aspect, specifically Article 300A, which safeguards the right to property. It also explored the concept of eminent domain, emphasizing that this power applies to private property and not to the property owned by the government.
Issues Involved:
Whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for the government’s acquisition of land, considering that the grant exclusively conferred the right to grow trees.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
After a thorough examination of the learned Single Judge’s observations and the pertinent legal provisions, the court declined to intervene in the matter. It concurred with the Single Judge’s findings that the grant of the right to grow trees did not equate to the grant of the land itself. The court underscored that the government’s ownership of the land remained unaffected, and any compensation, if applicable, was limited to the trees grown on the subject land. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed on the grounds of lacking merit, and costs were awarded to the prevailing party. In essence, the judgment clarifies that the right to property, as constitutionally protected, is subject to specific conditions. Moreover, the court emphasized that the government’s power of eminent domain does not extend to its own property. The decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between the grant of land and the grant of specific rights over the land in such cases.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
