IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.24660 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SAGAR STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING OFFICE AT NO.39 SNS PLAZA, 41, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI.RAKSHIT K.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MAHARSHI ARAVINDHA BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
… PETITIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB (METRO RAILWAY PROJECT) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. METRO RAIL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHANTINAGAR BUS STOP BANGALORE.
(RESPONDENT NO.4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.10.2017) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1;
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R2 AND R3; SRI K.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER ON 07.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE – G WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Rakshit K.N., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Vijaykumar A.Patil, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner was allotted an industrial plot bearing No.20 in Sy.No.19 of Hoodi Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk by the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which registered sale deed was executed on 20.03.2004 and thereafter revenue records also came to be mutated to the name of petitioner. However, portion of land was acquired for the purpose of Bangalore Metro Rail Project under the preliminary notification dated 27.04.2015 gazetted on 14.05.2015, followed by final notification issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act and published in the Gazette on 21.01.2016. By notice dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure-D), 2nd respondent informed the petitioner about acquisition of portion of the land owned by petitioner and called upon petitioner to produce original documents for verification vide notice dated 20.07.2016 (Annexure-E). Award under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Act came to be passed and compensation of Rs.11,89,307/- was awarded, which was intimated by 3rd respondent to 2nd respondent by communication dated 15.10.2016 (Annexure-F). However, petitioner sought for details and manner in which such compensation was determined from 3rd respondent by letter dated 07.11.2016 (Annexure-G). Subsequently, petitioner has received a notice of award dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure- H), whereunder petitioner was informed of determination of compensation under Land Acquisition Act and compensation of Rs.2,53,445/- came to be awarded. Hence, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other suitable Writ or direction, directing the respondents to consider the representations made by the petitioner on 07.11.2016 vide Annexure-G within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;
ii) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other suitable writ or direction to quash the impugned notice or award dated 24.04.2017 bearing No.KIADB/Metro/LA/R1E-193K/2017- 18/84 marked Annexure-H;
iii) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ or direction directing the respondents to award compensation as per Annexure-F.
3. Statement of objections have been filed by respondent No.3 stating thereunder that petitioner is entitled to seek for higher compensation by availing alternate remedy available under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for determination of higher market value and as such writ petition is not maintainable. It is also contended after following due procedure prescribed, award has been passed and representative of petitioner was present in said enquiry proceedings and compensation has also been deposited before Civil Court.
4. It is not in dispute that a general award dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure-R2) came to be passed and compensation has been determined thereunder. Co- ordinate Bench in W.P.No.44262/2016, while disposing of similar claim, by order dated 16.09.2016 had allowed the writ petition and had issued a direction to the respondent, namely Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to consider the case of the petitioner therein for payment of compensation by way of agreement under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act and had also directed 3rd respondent therein to consider said representation within an outer limit of eight weeks.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents does not dispute this fact. Order passed by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court reads as follows:
“4. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed. General award, Annexure-C insofar as it relates to petitioner is quashed. A direction shall ensue to the respondent – Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of compensation by way of agreement under Section 29(2) of ‘KIAD Act’, to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is made clear that this order is applicable if there is no dispute to title to the immovable property acquired and if there is one, then the general award insofar as petitioner is concerned will stand restored, until the dispute is resolved in favour of the petitioner. The respondent – Special Land Acquisition Officer is permitted to withdraw the award amount deposited before the Reference Court. No costs.”
6. In light of aforestated order passed by co- ordinate Bench, this Court is of the considered view that general award passed by respondent No.3 on 03.03.2017 vide Annexrue-R2 insofar as land of petitioner is concerned cannot be sustained. Hence, it is hereby quashed and respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of compensation by way of agreement under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act expeditiously within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
It is also made clear that this order would be applicable if there is no dispute with regard to petitioners title to the immovable property acquired and if there is one, then the general award insofar as petitioner is concerned will stand restored, until the dispute is resolved in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Reference Court. No order as to costs.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/- JUDGE ca