IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.2493 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB) AND WRIT APPEAL NO.2668 OF 2019 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
SRI. N.SHIVASHANKAR REDDY @ N.SHIVASHANKAR, S/O. LATE NAGARAJ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.228/31, 8TH MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR, BYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 011. ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. JAYAKIRTI M.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS, DEVELOPMENT BOARD (METRO RAILWAY PROJECT), NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARNATKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS, DEVELOPMENT BOARD (METRO RAILWAY PROJECT), NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. SMT. N.SUNANDA REDDY, W/O. LATE NAGARAJ REDDY, AGED ABOVE 61 YEARS, 5. KUMARI N.VANI REDDY, D/O. LATE NAGARAJ REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.228/31, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR, BYRASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 011. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. RAJAGOPAL M.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 & R5;) ---
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2019 PASSED BY THE JUSTICE OF HON’BLE Court IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 26803-804/2017 AND DISMISS THE SAME.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant herein is the fourth respondent in the writ petition filed by the fourth and fifth respondents herein. Their prayer before the learned Single Judge was to quash the proceedings dated 23rd March, 2017 of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. There was acquisition of the land described in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. The second prayer was to release the compensation amount in terms of the consent extended by the present appellant. Further, the prayer was to quash the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The learned Single Judge quashed the award dated 12th April, 2017 as well as the proceedings dated 23rd March, 2017 only to the extent of the direction issued to deposit the entire compensation in respect of the acquired land in the Court. A direction was also issued to disburse the compensation as agreed to by the parties as recorded in the order sheet dated 9th March, 2017. What was agreed and what was noted in the order sheet dated 9th March, 2017 is quoted by the learned Single judge in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
“Case called. Petitioner S.Sunanda present. N.Shivashankar Reddy present. N.Vani present. Three persons have agreed to divide the land value into 3 parts and to pay the same equally to mother Sunanda, Daughter N.Vani and Son N.Shivashankar Reddy. Three persons have agreed that mother Sunanda will receive 35% in the building Value and to give the remaining 65% to the Son Shivashankar. Daughter Vani stated that I don’t want any compensation in the building. Thus, they have requested to pay the compensation as agreed. Reserved for final order.
Sd/- 09.03.17 Sd/- N.Shivashankar Sd/- N.Vani Sd/- N.Sunanda Sd/- 9/3/17 Advocate”
Relying upon the said agreement that the relevant portion of the award was set aside and the learned Single Judge directed disbursement of the compensation in terms of the said agreement.
3. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the said agreement which is recorded in the proceedings was conditional one and was subject to the compliance with the other terms and conditions by the fourth and fifth respondents. He submitted that the suit on title is pending in the civil court and therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award rightly directed to deposit of the compensation amount in the Court. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the order of the learned Single Judge should not affect the pending suit.
4. We must note here that admittedly, the appellant has already taken the compensation in terms of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Moreover, the appellant did not dispute the agreement which is recorded in the order sheet dated 9th March, 2017, which is signed by the parties. The only contention of the appellant is that there were certain oral conditions which were not complied with. This contention has no basis.
5. The learned Single Judge rightly held that the appellant was bound by the Agreement recorded in the order sheet dated 9th March, 2017 as there is no dispute about the correctness thereof.
6. The impugned order is based on the understanding between the parties, which is confined to sharing of the compensation in respect of the acquired land. Therefore, we fail to understand how it has a bearing on the issues involved in the suit. Hence, no clarification is necessary.
Hence, we find no merit in the challenge to the impugned order and the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE Ksm*