1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.33053/2019 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN :
1. MR. JEMCY PONNAPPA C P S/O C P POONACHA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 4TH BLOCK, BYPASS ROAD, KUSHALNAGAR, SOWAWARPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O K N BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 45, 11TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003 2 . M/s CASUBA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE AT NO.14, "SRI NIKETAN"
NANDI DURGA CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE-560046 REP BY ITS PARTNER MR ARJUN BALASUBRMANYAM S/O K N BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 45, 11TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADV.) AND :
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER K.I.A.D.B. REGIONAL OFFICE, BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA NEW MANGALORE-575011 4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER K.I.A.D.B. REGIONAL OFFICE, BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA NEW MANGALORE-575011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R-1;
SR BASAVARAJ V. SABARAD, ADV. FOR R-2 TO R-4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.07.2019 PASSED BY THE R-3, A COPY OF WHICH IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- H AS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the endorsement dated 03/07/2019 at Annexure-H issued by respondent No.3, in so far as the reference made by the authorities under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘Act’ for short) inasmuch as drawing the award relating to the properties in question acquired by the KIADB under the provisions of the Karnataka Industries Area Development Act, 1966 (‘Act of 1966’ for short) for the project – 4th Phase expansion of Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Ltd.
2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners of the land converted from agricultural to non- agricultural purposes. Respondent No.1 issued a Preliminary Notification under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, notifying the petitioners’ property along with the other properties for the purpose of development by KIADB for 4th Phase expansion of Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Limited.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that in terms of the said notification, the compensation has to be determined as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘Act, 2013’ for short). However, the respondent-KIADB has issued an endorsement dated 03/07/2019 to determine compensation and to pass an award in terms of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Being aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioners placing reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.11209-11212/2019(LA-KIADB) dated 05/04/2019 would submit that the respondent-KIADB is obligated to determine the compensation, in terms of the Act of 2013, more particularly, in view of the Resolution of the Board in the 343rd meeting held on 27/08/2016.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Board would submit that the notification dated 20/12/2016 issued under section 28(1) of the Act being clear inasmuch as determining the compensation in terms of the Act, 2013, it is on the apprehension, the petitioners have challenged the endorsement on the premise that the compensation would be determined in terms of the Act, 1894 which requires to be negated, in terms of the notification dated 20/12/2016.
6. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is ex facie apparent that the Notification dated 20/12/2016 at Annexure-A issued under Section 28(1) of the Act, 1966 would make it clear that the compensation shall be determined in terms of the Act, 2013. This Court in W.P.No.11209-11212/2019, while considering the resolution of the Board Meeting held on 27/08/2016 observed that the acquisition proceedings being initiated subsequent to the New Act, 2013 coming into force, the compensation has to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013. Such statement indeed was made in the statement of objections filed by the KIADB in the said matter.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the endorsement dated 03/07/2019 at Annexure-H cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. The respondents shall determine the compensation in terms of the Act, 2013, in so far as the petitioners’ land acquired are concerned for the purpose of development by respondent No.2.
Writ petition stands disposed of, in terms of the above.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu