IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
PILLA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O. LATE MUNI NANJAPPA @ PAPAIAH R/AT SINGASANDRA VILLAGE BEHIND KARAGADAMMA TEMPLE BEGURU HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 068 …APPELLANT (BY SRI V. LAKSHMI NARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M.V.CHANDRA SHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (METRO RAIL PROJECT) KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/1, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 4. SMT. SHEELA BHANUMATHI AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS WRONGLY CLAIMED ADDRESS AS: R/AT NO.104/5, HOSUR MAIN ROAD SINGASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 068 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI M. NAGABHUSHANA ALONG WITH SRI.SRIHARI A.V, ADVOCATES FOR R4) *** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.01.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.33759/2018 (LA-KIADB) BY DECLARING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION NO.33759/2018 (LA-KIADB) FILED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.4.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in support of application for grant of leave. We have also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for first respondent, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
2. For the reasons, which we recording in the judgment, in our view, the appellant was a necessary party to the petition filed by the fourth respondent before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, a case is made out for grant of leave and for condoning delay of 44 days. Accordingly, IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2019 are allowed. The appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. The fourth respondent filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge for quashing common award made by the third respondent in acquisition proceedings. By the common award, the market value of the acquired land was determined, but the third respondent directed a reference to be made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the said Act of 1894’) to the Civil Court. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has partially set aside the impugned award, so far as it relates to subject land only for the limited purpose of re-determination and payment of compensation as if the acquisition is by an agreement in terms of sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. Thus, the order of reference under Section 30 of the said Act of 1894 has been set aside in so far as the subject land is concerned.
4. The submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant is, firstly, that the impugned judgment and order directly affects the rights of the appellant to claim compensation on account of acquisition and therefore, the appellant was a necessary and proper party before the learned Single Judge. Inviting our attention to the award, which was partially set aside under the impugned order, he submits that the appellant was present before the Land Acquisition Officer, when enquiry was made by him, which culminated into the award. He would, therefore, submit that apart from the merits of the case of the appellant, the impugned judgment and award will have to be set aside as the appellant was not heard.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, firstly, submitted that the appellant has no right, title or interest in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the fourth respondent. He relied upon the various documents, which are annexed to the statement of objections. He pointed out that writ petition was filed by the fourth respondent, only in respect of the land in Sy. No.104/5 of Singasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring 1064.5 Sq. Mtr. He alleged that there are several documents on record including the affidavit submitted by the father of the appellant before the Revenue Authorities, which indicate that the appellant is dis-entitled to claim any right, title or interest in respect of the land in Sy. No.104/5. He invited our attention to the various documents which are annexed to the statement of objections. He submitted that as the fourth respondent had produced an affidavit executed by the appellant, which dis-entitles the appellant to any right, title or interest in acquired land, the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of first respondent, supports the impugned order.
7. We have perused the impugned order and the award under Section 11 of the said Act of 1894, which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge. Clause No.VII of the award deals with the hearing of the objections regarding payment of compensation after notice was issued to the Objectors. From page No.15 of the translated version of the award, it appears that the present appellant was a person, who was present before the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of enquiry, who also laid a claim for compensation. Award records that, as there is a case pending before the Civil Court as well as this Court regarding the title of the property, it is difficult to decide the right to receive compensation and therefore, he ordered a Reference to be made under Section 30 and 31 of the said Act of 1894. Accordingly, the amount of compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer has been deposited in Civil Court in accordance with law under Section 31 of the said Act of 1894. It is pointed out that the name of the appellant appears as one of the Objectors, in the information submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer in the statement filed with the Civil Court in accordance with Section 19 of the said Act of 1894. Thus, the Land Acquisition Officer was of the view that he was unable to decide the conflicting claims to the entitlement to receive compensation and therefore, a Reference under Section 30 of the said Act of 1894 was made.
8. Coming back to the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the order dated 29th November 2018 in W.P. No.31702 of 2018. We have perused the said order dated 29th November 2018, which in turn relies upon the another order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th September 2016 in W.P. No.3961-62 of 2016. We have also perused the order dated 16th September 2016. In this case, a general award was impugned by filing a writ petition on the premise that the claim for compensation ought to be determined by an agreement under sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The learned Single Judge also noted that if the compensation is determined in accordance with sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, there will be a finality to the acquisition proceedings and the issue of the compensation. It is in this context, the learned Single Judge proceeded to set aside the award.
9. As noted earlier, the third respondent – the Land Acquisition Officer was of the view that he was not in a position to decide the issue of entitlement to receive compensation and therefore, he made a reference under Section 30 the said Act of 1894 for determination of the question as to who is the person to whom the compensation is payable. In the Reference, which was made in accordance with Section 30 the said Act of 1894, deposited the entire compensation amount. The present appellant was entitled to be heard and was entitled to lead evidence to establish her claim in the reference under Section 30 of the said Act of 1894. As pointed out earlier, while submitting information under Section 19 of the said Act of 1894, the 3rd respondent has shown the appellant as one of the Objectors. Therefore, it could be safely said that by the impugned order, the right of the appellant has been directly affected and therefore, the appellant was a necessary party before the learned Single Judge. As the appellant was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition, though he was a necessary party, only on that ground the impugned order calls for interference. While we do so, we make it clear that all issued will have to be gone into by the learned Single Judge after considering the additional documents produced by the fourth respondent.
10. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) The order dated 24th January 2019 is hereby set aside and the writ petition No.33759 of 2018 is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge;
(ii) On a formal application being made by the fourth respondent, the learned Single Judge will permit the impleadment of the appellant and other consequential amendments to the writ petition;
(iii) The writ petition shall be decided afresh by the learned Single Judge after giving an opportunity to the appellant to file objections.
(iv) While filing the application for amendment, it will be always open for the fourth respondent to apply for amendment for annexing the documents which are annexed to the objections in this appeal;
(v) The appeal is partly allowed with no order as to costs.
(vi) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the issue of the entitlement of the appellant to claim compensation in respect of the acquired land.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE VK