IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NOS.681/2019 AND 1650-1651/2019 (LA-KIADB) Between:
1. Sri. K. R. Ramachandra, Aged about 55 years, S/o. Late Ramappa, R/a. Kodipalya Village, Chudenahalli Dhakale, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 050.
2. Smt. Kempamma @ Javaramma, W/o. Late Puttaswamy Gowda, Aged about 72 years, R/a. 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, R/a House Hold Agriculture No.42, Babusabara Palya, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 060. ... Petitioners (By Sri. M.V. Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate) And 1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Secretary, Dept. 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 & Govt. of India, Represented by Chief Superintendent (LA & A) BMTC Complex, 3rd Floor, K.H. Road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027.
... Respondents (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1;
Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Advocate for R2; Sri. K. Krishna, Advocate for R3) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash general award dated 05.10.2018 passed by respondent No.2 produced at Annexure – V and etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners claiming to be the owners of the land now acquired vide General Award dated 05.10.2018 made by respondent No.2 – Special Land Acquisition Officer of the respondent -KIADB at Annexure – V, are before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari for its quashment and for treating acquisition in question as having been made by agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’ for short). They have also sought for a direction to respondent No.2– Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB to release the compensation for the land acquired.
2. After Service of notice, the State is represented by Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa, Learned Additional Government Advocate; Respondent No.2– Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB is represented by Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, Senior Panel Counsel; Respondent No.3-the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., is represented by Sri. K.Krishna, Senior Panel Counsel.
3. The subject matter of these writ petitions is substantially similar to the one in cognate W.P.No.6198/2015 (LA-KIADB) disposed off by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 25.08.2015, paragraph Nos.2 and 3 whereof read as under:
“2. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the ‘KIAD Act’ provides for determination of compensation by an agreement and in the light of the compromise decree whereunder, the property in question has fallen to the exclusive share of the petitioner, is entitled to such a consideration, since it is stated that by such an agreement, petitioner would be entitled to a better price as compensation instead of determination under a general award, while acquisition proceeding would attain a finality disentitling petitioner to challenge the same in this petition. In the circumstances, there is a need to interfere with General Award Annexure – A insofar as it relates to petitioner’s land.
3. In the result, this petition is allowed. General Award Annexure – A insofar as it relates to petitioner is concerned is quashed. A direction shall ensue to respondent-KIADB to consider the case of the petitioner for determination of compensation by way of an agreement under Section 29(2) of the ‘KIAD Act’ to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 31st October, 2015. It is made clear that this order is applicable only if there is any dispute to title in the immovable property acquired and if there is one, the General Award in respect of petitioner is concerned shall stand restored until the dispute is resolved.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the basis of the said judgment, submits that the relief granted to litigant therein needs to be granted to the petitioners herein as well on the principle of parity.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate and learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for contesting respondents having opposed the writ petitions for some time, now submit that in similar matter, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has treated the acquisition in question as having been made with agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, for the limited purpose of re-determination of compensation.
6. Sri. Dattathraya M. Joshi and Sri.
P.M.Siddamallappa, the learned Counsel appearing for the impleading applicants in the connected W.P.Nos. 45917 – 45919/2008 submit that the applicants therein being the parties interested in the land in acquisition have a right to compensation and therefore, till the said connected writ petitions are decided or some interim orders are made therein, the relief for awarding package compensation should not be granted since third party rights are involved. They also bring to the notice of the Court some civil suits concerning title to the land in acquisition pending before the Civil Courts wherein, the applicants are sought to be made parties.
7. Sri. Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the KIADB maintaining equi-distance from the rival claimants, submits that the said acquisition appears to have been already as the one made with the agreement and that the package compensation accordingly has been re- determined under Section 29(2) of the Act by the order dated 20.04.2018 and thus, the relief claimed by the petitioners appears to have been granted to them so far as the re- determination of the compensation is concerned; however, since there are rival claims, an endorsement is issued to the petitioners, deferring the payment of compensation and that, the same is challenged by the petitioners herein in the connected writ petitions mentioned above; unless, some direction is given in the said writ petitions, there is difficulty for releasing the compensation.
8. The contention now urged on behalf of the impleading applicants in the connected matters, cannot come in the way of granting relief to the petitioners inasmuch as the acquisition in question is being treated as the one by agreement in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act, in the light of a plethora of judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in similar circumstances, to the advantage of the land owners. The effect of this would be, the quantum of compensation stands fattened and the same may benefit other stake-holders/the rival claimants too if they prove their credentials in accordance with law, which aspect would be addressed in the connected writ petitions. Thus, the impleading applicants will not only be affected by the relief now being granted but they may be benefited as well inasmuch as the compensation for acquisition with agreement shall yield larger compensation.
9. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned General Award dated 05.10.2018 made by respondent No.2 –Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB at Annexure – V; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent No.2 to treat the acquisition of the petitioners’ land as the one by agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act only for the limited purpose of re-determining the package compensation, if the same is already not done.
10. However the release of the compensation so re- determined, shall be subject to the orders to be made in the connected W.P.Nos. 45917 – 45919/2008 wherein the counsel for the impleading applicants are yet to comply with the Office Objections concerning their applications.
Since, main matter itself is disposed off, the question of considering IA No.1/2019 for the grant of interim direction pales into insignificance.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv/KTY.