IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.13909/2019(LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANJULA DANIEL, RETD. GOVERNMENT SERVANT, W/O D.G.DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. SRI.CHRISTOPHER VIJAYAKUMAR DANIEL, S/O LATE D.G.DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 3. SRI. IMMANUEL PREM SUDAN DANIEL, S/O D.G.DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SRI. NOEL ARUN KUMAR DANIEL, S/O D.G.DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. SMT. MIRIAM SHARMILA, D/O D.G.DANIEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1/4, HOSUR TOAD, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 025. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH S. LOKRE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., (BMRCL), LAND ACQUIRING SECTION, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB (METRO RAIL PROJECT), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.5, “SYNOD SECRETARIAT,”
WHITES ROAD, RAYAPETTAH, CHENNAI – 600014.
REPTD, BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY REV. PRASANNA KUMAR SAMUEL AND REV. PAUL DANASHEKARAN, THE BISHOP AND SECRETARY RESPECTIVELY, KARNATAKA CENTRAL DIOCESE, NO.20, C.S.I COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU – 560027. ...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI. HARISH N.N, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE. FOR SRI. B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. B.M.ARUN, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO THE PETITIONERS ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
O R D E R Though the matter is listed for hearing on interlocutory applications, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the suit schedule property inter alia, challenging the Final Notification issued under Section 28(6) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (‘Act’ for short) dated 25/04/2018 or direct the respondent to pay the accrued compensation to the petitioners alone and for other consequential reliefs.
3. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and khatedars/Anubhavadars in possession and enjoyment of the property in question which was acquired by the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of the petitioner Nos.2 to 5.
4. It is submitted that Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (BMRCL) came with the proposal to acquire the building of the petitioners for Metro Rail Project, thereby depriving the petitioners of any compensation which is solely payable to the petitioners, as they are the khatedars and having built the premises and they are in lawful possession. The KIADB proceeded to deposit the amount in Court creating further litigation and depriving the rights of the petitioners from receiving any compensation directly.
5. Hence, the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that no enquiry was made under Section 28(3) of the Act, which is sine qua non for acquiring the properties under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of enquiry conducted, disbursing of compensation could be denied to the petitioners in full, to which they are legally entitled to. The respondents are making hectic efforts to dispossess the petitioners without due process of law i.e. without disbursement of compensation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled for relocation charges and rehabilitation charges. Hence, seeks for interference of this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is their landlord, the building has been constructed by the petitioners and they are entitled to compensation towards the building in addition to the relocation/rehabilitation charges, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and it is asserted that petitioner is entitled to compensation only to the building but not to the land.
8. Learned counsel however prays that the petitioners may be granted three months time to voluntarily hand over the possession of the property in question, subject to compliance with the statutory requirement under the provisions of the Act by the respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would submit that indeed notices were issued calling upon Mr. David George Danial to appear in the enquiry proceedings, now the petitioners cannot contend that no enquiry was held regarding the apportionment of compensation of the subject property in its entirety to the petitioners. These issues have to be decided before the competent Civil Court. The respondent No.2 has deposited the compensation amount under Sections. 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the competent Civil Court. The petitioners are at liberty to seek enhancement of compensation as well as their rights for the compensation in its entirety subject to establishing their rights before the jurisdictional Civil Court. Hence, it is submitted that the writ petition deserves to be rejected relegating the petitioners to the Civil Court to establish their rights in the pending proceedings. Metro Rail Project, being quintessential project for public purpose requires to be implemented in an expedite manner. Accordingly seeks for rejection of the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the compensation determined in terms of the award has already been deposited before the competent Civil Court under Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 17/08/2019 in LAC No.285/2019. The competent Civil Court has issued notices to the interested persons including the petitioners herein for adjudication of the dispute under Section 30 and 31 of the Act of 1894. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined under the general award, they are at liberty to seek for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law before the appropriate Court. However, the petitioners are at liberty to submit a representation before the respondent No.1 seeking relocation/rehabilitation charges.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, it is not in dispute that the main grievance of the petitioners is inasmuch as the apportionment of compensation.
12. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to compensation in full relating to the subject property-building and further compensation towards relocation and rehabilitation as well as other statutory benefits. In the public interest, the Metro Project has to be proceeded with, in an expedite manner. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners can establish their rights for apportionment of compensation in full in their favour relating to the subject property in the pending LAC No.285/2019. Petitioners are at liberty to seek for enhancement of compensation, if aggrieved by the quantum of compensation determined in the general award passed by the respondents- authorities in accordance with law before the competent Court. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated before the competent Civil Court.
13. In the circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to submit a representation before the respondent No.1 seeking relocation/rehabilitation charges within a period of one week from today. If such representation is submitted the same shall be considered by the respondent No.1 in accordance with law and suitable action shall be taken to provide relocation/ rehabilitation benefits to the petitioner in an expedite manner. Three months time is granted to the petitioner to quit, vacate and handover vacant possession of the property in question to the respondents subject to the respondent No.1 considering the representation to be filed by the petitioner in an expedite manner. An affidavit to the said effect shall be filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Msu