IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT W.P.NOS.45917-45919 OF 2018 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. K.R.RAMACHANDRA, S/O LATE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODIPALYA VILLAGE, CHUDENAHALLI DHAKALE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060.
2. SMT.KEMPAMMA @ JAVARAMMA, W/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE HOLD AGRICULTURE, NO.42, BABUSABARA PALYA, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060.
3. SRI.B.P.CHANDRE GOWDA, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOUSE HOLD AGRICULTURE, NO.42, BABUSABARA PALYA, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.M.V.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT OF KARNATAKA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JOINT VENTURE OF GOVT OF KARNATAKA AND GOVT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT (LA & A), BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
4. SMT.MANGAMMA, W/O LATE CHENNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, WARD NO.159, BABUSABARA PALYA, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060.
5. SRI.KEMPARAMAIAH, S/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT BABUSABARA PALYA, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 060.
R4 & 5 ARE AMENDED V.C.O DATED 27.02.2019.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.NARASIREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.BASAVARAJA V SABARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI.DATTATRAYA.M.JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI.P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON ‘FOR BEING SPOKEN TO, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This matter having been extensively argued on 15.07.2019, this Court in principle had broadly agreed for release of the substantial compensation amount subject to certain terms and conditions; however, on the request of the petitioners and the consenting respondents, matter having been posted ‘For Being Spoken To’, today, was further heard for final disposal itself with the consent of both the sides.
2. The petitioners being the land loosers in the acquisition are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for laying a challenge to the KIADB Endorsement dated 03.10.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-‘A’, whereby they are delayed if not denied, the compensation on the ground that in O.S.No.5811/2008 the learned Principal City Civil Judge vide order dated 03.08.2018 has restrained its release.
3. The petitioners seek release of the compensation amount arguing that being the true owners of the subject land they are the khathadars; all notifications under which acquisition was initiated and accomplished under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, their names only are reflected; the suit in O.S.No.5811/2008 having been filed by one Mr.Puttaswamiah, the petitioners are not parties thereto as yet; the said Puttaswamiah himself has filed an affidavit dated 06.06.2018 as per Annexure-‘L’ hereto, signifying his consent for release of the compensation in favour of the petitioners; there is absolutely no legal impediment for such release.
4. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent having opposed the release of the amount, on the previous hearing dates has now filed two memos signed by the 4th respondent herein. The first memo reads as under:
“ The 4th respondent who happens to be contesting party in the writ petition does not have any objection or whatsoever for releasing or withdrawing compensation amount for the Lands acquired by the KIADB being released in favour of petitioner subject to outcome of the suit in O.S.NO. 6177/2012 and O.S. .NO.5823/2004 which are agreed to be withdrawn. So far as petitioner land is concerned.
The contests of the above memo is read over and explained to Respondent No.4 in the Kannada Language known to her thereafter Respondent put her signature on the memo before the Hon’ble court.”
The second memo has the following text:
“ The respondent No.4 most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court, as the matter is settled out of the Court. Hence, this respondent has No Objection to allow the above Writ Petition, in the interest of Justice and equity.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners bangs upon the judgment dated 27.02.2019 in their earlier W.P.No.681/2019 and W.P.Nos.1650-1651/2019 (LA-KIADB) wherein this Court having allowed the same in part has directed the SLAO of KIADB to treat acquisition of petitioners’ land as the one by consent in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act for the purpose of re-determining the package compensation; he also states that the release of now re-determined compensation was made subject to the result of the present Writ Petitions wherein the contesting respondents had sought for their impleadment thereto.
6. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent who later got impleaded to these Writ Petitions has not filed any objections; however he opposes the Writ Petitions stating that his suit in O.S.No.25318/2017 for partition and separate possession of 1/8th share in the subject land/compensation is pending and that an application is also filed seeking impleadment of these petitioners as defendants, which is yet to be taken up for consideration; if the entire compensation amount is released that may render the likely decree for partition a paper decree; so contending he seeks protection of his interest by some appropriate measure.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having interacted with the 4th respondent Smt.Mangamma in kannada, this Court is of the considered opinion that relief needs to be granted to the petitioners of course subject to terms, for the following reasons:
i) It is not in dispute that all the acquisition notifications issued under the provisions of 1966 Act comprising the petition lands mentioned the names of the petitioners as owners/khatadars; even awards mentioned their names only; the compensation having been re-determined in terms of the judgment dated 27.02.2019 in the earlier round of litigations, now the same is lying with the KIADB which has no objections for release but for the suit mentioned in its endorsements.
ii) The suit in O.S.No.5811/2008 has been filed by one Mr.Puttaswamiah who has given an affidavit to the respondent LAO of the KIADB on 06.06.2018 stating that he does not have any objection for the compensation amount being released to the petitioners and therefore the injunctive restraint granted by the trial Court is not an impediment for granting relief to the petitioners especially when there is no counter claim filed in the said suit;
iii) The respondent No.4 Smt.Mangamma present in the Court has filed two memos whose contents are re-produced in the paragraphs supra specifically stating that the dispute has been settled out of the Court and that she has no objection whatsoever for the compensation amount being released in favour of the petitioners;
iv) The 5th respondent Sri.Kemparamaiah in his suit in O.S.No.25318/2017 has sought for partition and separate possession of his 1/8th share interalia in the petition property/the compensation payable therefor; this 1/8th share approximately works out to be 12.5%; true it is, if entire amount is released to that extent he may be put to prejudice and therefore 10% of the compensation amount shall be retained with the KIADB subject to result of the suit.
v) The above apart the petitioners have agreed to furnish to the LAO/KIADB a land measuring 25 guntas in Sy.No.161 of Kengeri revenue village by way of security for protecting the interest of 5th respondent Sri.Kemparamaiah who happens to be the plaintiff in O.S.No.25318/2017; thus the value of these 25 guntas + the 10% retention amount almost doubly protects the interest of this respondent subject to outcome of the suit and vi) The suit of Sri.Puttaswamiah in O.S.No.5811/2008 is more than a decade old and several applications are stated to be pending; this apart suit has several defendants and some of them are yet to be served; the suit in O.S.No.25318/2017 filed by Sri.Kemparamaiah is also not complete in pleadings, some parties being yet to be served with Court notice; not releasing the compensation to the land loosers till after the disposal of these suits would cause enormous prejudice to the land loosers; the interest of the plaintiffs in the suits can be protected by taking some security in the form of unencumbered land.
In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a writ of mandamus issues:
(a) to the respondent KIADB and its SLAO to release to the petitioners 90% of the compensation amount payable under the subject awards, forthwith on petitioners furnishing the aforesaid 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.161 of Kengeri revenue village by way of security for protecting the interest of the plaintiffs in the above suits;
(b) the retention money of 10% of the compensation shall be kept in an interest earning fixed deposit scheme in any nationalized bank forthwith;
(c) the release of the said retention money of 10% of the compensation shall be subject to outcome of the suits; and, (d) it is open to parties to the writ petition or to the suits to enter into compromise or amicable settlement of the lis, without being influenced by the observations herein above made.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc