IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.33365/2015 (LA – RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.N.R.KRISHNA MURTHY, NO.39/126, 1ST D - CROSS, REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 040.
... PETITIONER [BY SRI.SATHISH KUMAR J., ADV.] AND:
1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER), D.B.PURA SUB DIVISION, TALUK OFFICE, DODDABALLAPUR – 561 203.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
[BY SRI. SANDESH KUMAR M., HCGP] …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.01.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE – C AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
i) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the
LAO/CR/15/2019 dated 11.09.2019 passed by 1st respondent, Annexure-C1.
i(b). issue writ of mandamus and directing the respondents to grant alternate land with similar potentiality by treating the land as having been acquired as on today and or in alternate to pay compensation determining the market value prevailing today.
ii) And or in alternate direct the respondents to grant an alternate land equivalent to the portion of the land that has been acquired.
iii) To pass any other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court feels deem fit under the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of the land to an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No.36/2 situated at Narasipura Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. It is contended that the said land was acquired by the Government of Karnataka and that preliminary notification dated 10.5.1983 was published in the official gazette on 9.2.1984 and the final notification was published on 14.3.1983. It is submitted that the compensation amount was fixed at Rs.2,330/- in terms of the general award passed on 5.12.1988. On L.A.C. No.101/1998 filed by the petitioner under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, the reference was partly allowed and the market value of the land in question was fixed at Rs.24,000/- per acre with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of preliminary notification till the date of general award or taking possession, whichever is earlier. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the award has been passed in the year 2003, the respondent has neither deposited nor paid the award amount to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner has made representation to respondent No.1 repeatedly, but in vain. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not depositing/paying the award amount fixed in L.A.C. No.101/1998 despite nearly three decades is ex-facie apparent. It is settled law that no acquisition of property can be made without compensating the person for the land acquired. Despite the order passed by the reference Court in L.A.C. No.101/1998 on 18.9.2003, no efforts have been made by the respondents to comply with the same. It shows the lackadaisical attitude of the respondents in sleeping over the matter for decades.
The petitioner being the land looser is harassed by the authorities in not making the compensation well within the reasonable time. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner for grant of an alternate land in accordance with law. Hence, the order impugned dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure-C1) suffers from arbitrariness and lacks reasons.
4. In the circumstances, Annexure-C1 dated 11.9.2019 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a speaking order thereon giving the reasons keeping in mind the date of acquisition of land in question vis-à-vis, the date of award passed by the reference Court in L.A.C. No.101/1998 and the lethargic attitude of the respondents in not making the payment of compensation for decades to the petitioner. An appropriate decision shall be taken by respondent No.1 in an expedite manner, in any event not lather than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs CT:SN