Home / Supreme Court / Judgments / 2025 / Diary 10189

MENAKA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Supreme Court of India | Diary 10189/2025

Status

ROP - of Main Case

Decided On

17-04-2025

Bench

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH

Petitioner

MENAKA

Respondent

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Primary Holding

Once acquired land has been utilised for public purpose, de-notification under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not permissible, though the landowner retains the right to seek enhancement of compensation.

Download PDF Check another SC case

Full Judgment Text

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.3 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)……………... Diary No(s).10189/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-11-2024 in WA No.619/2023 (L-RES) passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru] MENAKA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s) (IA No.92019/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE DEFECTS, IA No. 92016/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Om Prakash, Adv. Mr. Chandresh Pratap, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Mr. Nitish Pande, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Udaipuria, Adv. Mr. Amish Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Sudeepti Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukul Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv. Ms. Anjana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) : UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length. 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s land has already been utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired, 1

namely, the construction of Commercial Tax Check-Posts, it is difficult to accept the petitioner’s prayer for de-notifying the acquired land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (since repealed). 4. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition, to this extent, is dismissed. 5. However, if the petitioner could not file appeal before the High Court for enhancement of compensation on account of pendency of the subject-proceedings, she may file the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. The High Court may consider such prayer sympathetically and in accordance with law. 6. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 2

Search This Case

Supreme Court Resources

High Court Case Status

Check case status for High Courts across India