IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 36615 OF 2018 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
ANJENAPPA S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS OCC:AGRICULTURIST, R/O JOTHIPURA VILALGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. C H JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISVESWARAIAH TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK BENGALURU-56001.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA NO.2237/2003 AND CONNECTED CASES DATED 16.11.2007 WHICH WAS THEREAFTER CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.7269/2013 IN ORDER DATED 26.02.2014.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner who claims to have lost land in acquisition is against non-consideration of his claim for enhancement of compensation on par with the one granted in respect of other lands of the same villages that were also acquired under the very same Notification in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered on 16.11.2007 in MFA No.2237/2003 & other connected appeals at Annexure-D; learned Sr. Advocate Mr. C H Jadhav also brings to the notice of the Court that the said Division Bench judgment having been put in challenge in SLP Nos. SLP (C) No(s). 1046-1059 of 2009 & connected Petitions, has been affirmed by the Apex Court vide order dated 26.02.2014 at Annexure-E.
2. The respondent – SLAO having entered appearance through the learned HCGP, Mr. Dildar Shiralli opposes the writ petition stating that the pleadings lack material particulars especially as to the condition precedent, namely that the petitioner’s lands too were in the very notification which comprised other lands in respect of which enhanced compensation has been granted. Having so argued, he now adds that, if the petitioner has claimed enhancement of compensation under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there would be no difficulty for considering the same in accordance with law, if credentials are established.
3. I have heard the learned Sr. Advocate, Sri C.H. Jadhav appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner on record; I have heard the learned HCGP Mr. Dildar Shiralli. I have perused the Writ Petition papers and the decisions rendered by the Apex Court as well as the Division of this Court Bench mentioned above which again are a part of the Record.
4. The pleadings of the petitioner coupled with the evidentiary material placed on record establish that his land was acquired along with others for the benefit of DRDO for the purpose of establishing Electronic Warfare Range, under the very same notification; in several Reference Cases namely LAC Nos. 263 to 267/1996 and other connected matters in respect of the lands comprised in the very same notification, the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation.
5. The above was challenged by the aggrieved in MFA Nos. 2237/2003 & other connected Appeals and that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16.11.2007 at Annexure-D granted further enhancement. Following the very same judgment, a Coordinate Bench of this Court too vide judgment dated 05.08.2011 in W.P.No.27844/2009 (LA-RES) at Annexure-F has enhanced the compensation from Rupees Three Lakh to Seven per Acre. Paragraph No.7 of the said judgment reads as under:
“Having regard to the fact that in appeals filed by the land owners, this court has further enhanced compensation to Rs.7.00 lakh per acre, the petitioner is, prima facie, entitled to the said enhancement also. However, the judgment of this court enhancing the compensation to Rs.7.00 lakh per acre is pending consideration before the Apex Court as the same is assailed by the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the compensation as determined by the Apex Court in terms of Section 28-A of the Act. Till the order of the Apex Court is passed, the petitioner would be entitled to the compensation as determined by the reference court with all the statutory benefits. Under the circumstances, Annexure-G dated 29.01.2007 is quashed. The respondent is directed to disburse the compensation determined in terms of the award dated 7.10.2006 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If the petitioner is otherwise entitled to received the said Compensation. The said disbursement would be without any prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek further compensation in the event the apex Court affirms the judgment of this court or further enhances the compensation along with all statutory benefits and interest.”
6. The challenge before the Apex Court mentioned in the aforesaid quoted paragraph, laid by the respondent – DRDO in Civil Appeal No. 7269/2013 came to be negatived vide order dated 26.02.2014 at Annexure – E and therefore, what has been paid as enhanced compensation in a sum of Rupees Seven lakh remains intact in all those cases. On that basis, the petitioner had made representations dated 15.07.2015, 20.03.2017 and 06.08.2018 at Annexures respectively at G1, G2 & G3 which having remained unconsidered, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of Writ Court.
7. It is needless to state that where enhancement of compensation has been granted either by the Reference Court or by the Writ Court, to the owners of the lands in acquisition, the owners of the other lands that figured in the very same acquisition notification are entitled to claim similar enhancement under Section 28A of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is a right given to the land owner who has lost his land in acquisition; where in exercise of that right the land owner has made a claim, it is the legal obligation of the competent official to consider the same. This obligation having not been discharged, and there is no likelihood of the same being discharged in the near future as vehemently submitted by learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. C H Jadhav, the indulgence of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction is eminently warranted.
8. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the award of enhanced compensation, as made out in his Representations dated 20.03.2017 and 06.08.2018 at Annexures- G2 & G3 respectively in terms of Section 28(A) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 keeping in view the observations made in the judgments of the Division Bench as well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court and also in the order of the Apex Court referred to above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.
Time for compliance is three months.
It is needless to state that it is open to the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioner or the DRDO as are required for due consideration of the claim in question subject to the rider that no delay shall be brooked in that guise.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv