IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.2568/2019 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN A. ALBERT VICTOR, S/O S. AUGUSTINE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT SY. No.6, SINGAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BUDIGERE POST, BENGALURU-562 129. …APPELLANT. (BY SRI SRIDHAR G., ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE KIADB BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, KHANIJA BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR / RESPONDENT No.3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER [ANNEXURE ‘A’] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.26147/2017 AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE W.P. No.26147/2017.
.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant is the writ petitioner. On 25th September 2008, a final notification under sub-section 4 of section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the said Act of 1966’) was issued and the lands claimed by the appellant vested in the State Government. It is not in dispute that on 8th July 2009, two agreements were entered into between the appellant and Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short, ‘KIADB’), whereunder the appellant agreed to surrender the possession of the schedule property and acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs.2.48 Crores and 4.96 Crores respectively (total amount of Rs.7.44 Crores) by way of compensation. On the very day, two separate receipts were executed by the appellant acknowledging receipt of the aforesaid two amounts. Further, three sets of documents were executed by the appellant. First is the indemnity bond in favour of the KIADB. The second document is an affidavit declaring that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property. The third set of documents is possession letters.
2. After a gap of almost eight years after receiving the amount of Rs.7.44 Crores and executing the aforesaid documents, on 15th June 2017, the appellant filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the acquisition on the basis of the notification dated 25th September 2008 has lapsed and that the said notification is arbitrary and discriminatory. Another prayer was made directing the respondent not to interfere with the possession over the schedule land.
3. The learned single Judge by the impugned order, rejected the writ petition after noticing the aforesaid facts and by observing that after receiving the compensation, the appellant was estopped from denying the vesting of the land in the State Government.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that according to the provisions of the said Act of 1966, the acquisition is not complete. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, MYSORE AND ANOTHER v. ANASUYA BAI (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS1. He relied upon paragraph Nos.19 and 20 of the said decision. He submitted that there is no award made as per the provisions of Section 30 of the said Act of 1966. He submitted that there is no agreement entered into as contemplated by the provisions of law. He invited our attention to the contentions raised in the petition. He submitted that the respondents had given ultimatum calling upon the farmers to collect the compensation failing which, the proceedings under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, will be initiated. Therefore, the appellant was forced to accept the compensation. He urged that the appellant had no choice but to sign the various documents. He submitted that this is a case where there is neither an acquisition by agreement between the parties nor there is an acquisition in accordance with law. He submitted that the appellant continues to be in possession of the schedule land.
1 (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 313 5. We have considered the submissions.
6. We must note here that the appellant had invoked the discretionary equitable jurisdiction of learned single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As narrated earlier, on 8th July 2009, the appellant admittedly executed several documents such as agreements, receipts acknowledging the total amount of Rs.7,44,00,000/-, indemnity bond, affidavit and the possession receipts recording handing over of possession of the schedule property to KIADB. Our attention is invited to the agreements, which are signed by the appellant in English language. Agreements reveal the agreed rate of Rs.62,00,000/- per acre for compensation was accepted by the appellant. In all the documents, the appellant has asserted that he is the owner of the schedule land. The documents acknowledge receipt of the compensation by the appellant. The amount was paid by a cheque in a sum of Rs.7,44,00,000/- which the appellant accepted and encashed. There is no document on the record, which indicates that the appellant accepted the amount under protest. No one forced the appellant to deposit the cheque in his bank account. More importantly, after 8th July 2009 when various documents were executed and a sum of Rs.7,44,00,000/- was received by the appellant, he never protested. He never offered to return the compensation amount. After a lapse of about 8 years after receiving amount, in June 2017, he approached the writ Court by filing the aforesaid petition. Even thereafter, he never returned the amount though his case was that the acquisition had lapsed.
7. In view of this conduct of the appellant, the gross delay involved and especially in the light of the fact that by virtue of the notification dated 25th September 2008, the vesting of the schedule land was complete, the learned single Judge refused to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment has recorded reasons such as the conduct of the appellant as well as the delay and laches for refusing to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge has rightly relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. HOUSING BOARD, CHENNAI Vs. M. MEIYAPPAN AND
OTHERS2. The learned single Judge has also taken into
2 (2010) 14 SCC 309 consideration the long silence of the appellant and the delay of eights years.
8. We may note here that considering a grievance made in the writ petition that certain amount at agreed rate is not paid, the learned single Judge directed the competent authority to examine the claim of the appellant and payment of the amount due, if any, to the appellant.
9. There is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned single Judge. The discretion has been exercised on the basis of the relevant factors.
10. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE sma