- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1767 WP No. 44575 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 44575 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MURUGESH.A.B. S/O LATE BHYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT ACHHARADI VILLAGE, HANUBALU HOBLI, SAKALESHPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.P.LEELADHAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, MANGALORE-BENGALURU PIPELENE PROJECT, DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER, OFFICES PREMISES, MANGALURU-575 001. 2. M/S PETRONET M.H.B. LIMITED NO.332, DARUS SALAM BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VASANTH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.R.EKALAVYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.K.SRIDHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1767 WP No. 44575 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.H.P.Leeladhar., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vasanth., counsel on behalf of Sri.K.Krishna., for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.R.Ekalavya., counsel on behalf of Sri.B.K.Sridhar., for respondent No.2 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Hassan in I.A.Misc.No.55/2012 on I.A.No.II vide Annexure-A. 3. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. Suffice it to note that the Central Government in the interest of public at large for transportation of petroleum from Mangalore to Bangalore in the State of Karnataka through Pipeline, acquired right of user in certain land. The first respondent is the Authority constituted or authorized by the Central Government to perform the further proceedings of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1767 WP No. 44575 of 2017 acquisition of right of user of the notified land. In respect of the land in Sy.No.52/2 of Accharadi Village, Hassan District, it was notified to the extent of 0-39 guntas of land in the Notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962. As per the RTC entries, the land in question was a Government land and the petitioner and another were the occupants of the above land. The Central Government issued Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act to acquire the right of users in Sy.No.52/2 of Accharadi Village, Hassan District measuring 0-39 guntas of land along with certain other lands vide Notification dated 08.08.1998. After issuance of the Notification, the first respondent issued notices to the interest persons and notified under Section 6(1) of the Act for acquisition of right of users. Notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 03.07.1999. Award was passed for the user of rights of the said Village of land on 01.03.2001. The petitioner received an amount of Rs.5,746/- in respect of malkies in the land in question on 04.06.2002 vide Cheque bearing No.206597 dated 30.05.2002 and Rs.12,500/- towards the compensation for the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1767 WP No. 44575 of 2017 acquisition of users right in respect of 0-25 guntas of land out of 0-39 guntas of aforesaid land in Sy.No.52/2. As the things stood thus, after a lapse of almost ten years i.e., in the year 2012, the petitioner filed a petition before the Addl. District Judge, Hassan in I.A.Misc.No.55/2012 seeking compensation. He also filed an application in I.A.No.II under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. As already noted above, the compensation was received back in the year 2002. Strangely, the petitioner filed a petition seeking compensation in the year 2012. There is an inordinate delay of almost ten years. The Trial Court extenso referred to the material on record and vide order dated 31.07.2017 dismissed the application and also the main petition. In my view, the order of dismissal is just. I find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 35