IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION Nos. 51524-51525 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Byamma, Aged about 78 years, W/o Late Chinnappa, 2. Smt. Eeramma, Aged about 74 years, W/o Late Ramappa @ Ramachari, Both Residing at B.K.Palya Village, Jala hobli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-562149. ….Petitioners (By Sri. C.M.Nagabhushana, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vidhanasoudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Developments Board, No.49, 4th & 5th Floor, East wing, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer & Executive Member 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development No.49, 4th & 5th Floor, East Wing, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru -560 001. ….Respondents (By Sri.Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1, Sri.B.B.Patil, Advocate for R2 and R3) These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents pass an award in favour of the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of the petitioners lands vide preliminary notification dated 7.8.2006 gazetted on 07.08.2006, issued by R-2 and final notification dated 25.09.2008 gazetted on 25.09.2008 issued by R-1 vide Annexure-D.
These writ petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners being the grantees or their successors in interest vide Grant order dated 15.06.1963 and having got the mutation of entries in respect of the subject lands in the Property Records have knocked at the doors of Writ Court complaining that despite acquisition of their lands, they have not yet been paid compensation and that there is no justification whatsoever for denying the same.
2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent-State being represented by its HCGP Sri Dildar Shiralli, and the 2nd respondent-KIADB and the 3rd respondent its SLAO being represented by their panel counsel Sri B.B.Patil who has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the writ petitions. Sri Patil states that, the petitioners cannot have any grievance against the KIADB since the compensation amount is already deposited in the jurisdictional authority as is evidenced by the letter dated 29.04.2015 addressed by the SLAO to the jurisdictional Tahsildar at Annexure-R3 and the Corporation Bank Cheque dated 29.04.2015 accompanying the same.
3. Sri Dildar Shiralli submits that the validity of the Grant Order was the subject matter of Revision Petitions before the Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Sub- Division u/s. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 admittedly and therefore in such circumstances the compensation remains unpaid and that the same cannot be found fault with.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Prof.
Nagabhushana argued, and in my view rightly that the Revision Orders of the said Special Deputy Commissioner both dated 27.01.2016 at Annexures-J & K to the Writ Petitions specifically state that the Grants are genuine and therefore there is no justification for delaying the payment of compensation.
5. The reasoning part of both the Revision Orders read as under:
“ All these things substantiate the genuineness of the grant in favour of the respondents herein. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the grant made in respect of the respondent herein is a genuine one.
Hence I proceed to pass the following.
O R D E R The proceedings initiated against the respondent under the Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is hereby dropped. Tahsildar, Bengaluru North (Addl.) Taluk is directed to consider the case of the respondent for continuing the revenue entries in respect to subject land in accordance with law”.
6. In the above circumstances these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the first respondent to refund/remit back such amount of compensation to the second respondent-KIADB as would cover the claim of the petitioners and thereupon the respondent-KIADB shall take all the steps required for disbursing the compensation to the petitioners-land losers after ascertaining their credentials, in accordance with law.
Time for compliance is three months. A compliance report shall be filed in the Registry without brooking any delay.
It is open to the respondent KIADB and its SLAO to solicit any information/copies of documents from the side of the petitioners as are required for considering their claim for compensation, forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS/-