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 Nos. 49505-506/2016 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KATTUGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU TALUK-560 049 2. SUBBARAYAPPA S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT KATTUGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU TALUK-560 049 (BY SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VISVESHWARAIAH TOWERS DR BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE DEFENCE RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION, C.V.RAMANNAGAR BENGALURU-560 093 … PETITIONERS … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.1.2015 AS PER ANNEX-Q TO THE W.P. & CONSEQUENTLY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioners have a short grievance as to non- consideration of their representation dated 23.01.2015 at Annexure-Q wherein they have sought for compensation in respect of their land that has been utilized by the second respondent – DRDO without resorting to due acquisition process.
2. The respondents having entered appearance through their counsel resisted the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners have not furnished necessary material particulars and the documents supporting their claim as to the ownership of the land in question.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the first round of litigation in W.P. Nos.14265/2011 & 18240/2011, this Court vide judgment dated 13.04.2012, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G has directed the respondents to identify and ascertain whether the land of the petitioners was utilized by the second respondent, after conducting a due survey; accordingly, the survey was conducted and it was discovered that petitioners’ land was appropriated by the second respondent sans acquisition process.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends with vehemence that either the land has to be given back or the compensation for the utilized land has to be paid inasmuch as right to property is constitutionally guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India inasmuch as, taking the private property of the citizen high handedly without due acquisition process is nothing but a kind of land robbery by the State. The learned counsel also draws the attention of the Court to the order disposal dated 07.10.2014 made by the Division Bench of this Court in petitioner’s Contempt of Court Case No. 1227/2014 and 1248/2014 (Civil).
5. I have heard the l learned counsel appearing for the parties; I have perused the petition papers and having adverted to the judgments of this court on writ side and on the contempt side.
6. In the earlier round of litigation this court vide judgment dated 13.04.2012 had observed as under:
“In case, if it is found that the aforementioned property of the petitioners is taken possession off by respondents, the petitioners shall be paid compensation. The date of conducting survey should be the date for fixing market value of the property. The Preliminary notification should be deemed to have issued notionally for the purpose of payment of compensation as on the date of conducting the survey. It is further made clear that only if the petitioners’ property is taken possession off and if the petitioners are already not granted the compensation in respect of the property, they are entitled to get the compensation as per law. Survey shall be conducted as aforementioned within three months from the date of receipt of this order after issuing notice to the petitioners and respondents.”
7. Pursuant to the writ issued by this Court as above in the aforesaid petitions, the survey was conducted and it was discovered that petitioners land was appropriated by the second respondent without lawful acquisition process. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2014 in the Contempt Case has observed as under:
“7. In the light of the statements made in the aforesaid additional affidavit and also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the instant contempt petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the complainants to redress their grievance before Accused No.2 in the light of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.14265 and 18420 of 2011, regarding payment of compensation as per law, if so advised or need arises.
8. The petitioners have made a representation dated 23.01.2015 at Annexure-Q along with the documents to prima facie vouch their title to the land in question; since then more than three years have lapsed, not even a page having been heard. When a citizen complains that his property has been high handedly taken by the State without due acquisition process and therefore he should be given the recompense, the respondents are duty bound to consider the same within a reasonable period. This having not been done and no justification for keeping the representation of the petitioners in cold storage indefinitely being shown, the petitioners need to be granted relief as sought for in the writ petitions, there being no repugnant factors; justice of the case warrants it.
9. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the second respondent to consider petitioners' representation dated 23.01.2015 keeping in view the observation made hereinabove, and in the earlier judgments of this Court, within a period of three months, in accordance with law, and further to inform the petitioners the result of such consideration forthwith.
It is open to the second respondent to solicit any information or documents from the side of the petitioners as may be required for due consideration of their claim for compensation, subject to the rider that no delay shall be brooked in the guise of such solicitation.
This is a fit case for imposition of cost; however, on the gracious suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioners no cost is being imposed hoping that the second respondent shall not unjustifiably drive the petitioners to the launch of one more legal battle, at his peril.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv