IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P.Nos.26128-26137 OF 2018 AND W.P.Nos.26139-153 OF 2018 (LA-RES) Between:
1. Sri.Ningappa Dead by his Lrs Smt.Deveeramma Aged about 58 years W/o Late Ningappa 2. Smt.Suvarana Aged about 42 years D/o Late Puttegowda 3. Smt.Yashodamma Aged about 50 years W/o Shivappa 4. Smt.Puttamalamma Aged about 60 years W/o Kullegowda 5. Smt.Akkayamma Aged about 50 years W/o Yallegowda 6. Sri.Ningegowda Aged about 60 years S/o Late Puttegowda 7. Sri.Puttswamygowda Aged about 53 years S/o Late Muddegowda 8. Smt.Sannamma Aged about 60 years W/o Kari Puttegowda 9. Smt.Mahadevamma Aged about 62 years W/o Late Siddaramaiah 10. Sri.Muddegowda Aged about 58 years S/o Doddamma 11. Smt.Malamma Aged about 50 years W/o Late Sannaputegowda 12. Sri.Thopegowda Aged about 56 years S/o Muddegowda Dead by his Lrs Smt.Kamalamma 13. Smt.Lakshamamma Aged about 54 years W/o Late Madaiah 14. Smt.Malamma Aged about 62 years W/o Muddegowda 15. Smt.Malamma Aged abut 60 years W/o Late Lingaiah 16. Smt.Sarojamma alias Sannamma, Aged about 58 years W/o Era Chari W.P. Nos.26139-153/2018 17. Sri.Appajappa Aged about 59 years S/o Late Maralappa 18. Sri.Vishkantappa Aged about 52 years S/o Sannappaji 19. Sri.Puttegowda Aged about 58 years S/o Late Sanna Jyothigowda 20. Smt.Indiramma Aged about 54 years W/o Late Kunnegowda 21. Sri.Balaramegowda Aged about 60 years S/o Late Puttegowda All are residing at: Jabagere Village, Gavadgere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District – 571105.
22. Sri.Mari malegowda Aged about 56 years S/o Late Kulla Marigowda 23. Sri.Soma Shekara Aged about 45 years S/o Late B.Arjuna 24. Sri.Ramegowda Aged about 48 years S/o Hutche gowda 25. Sri.Ramegowda Aged about 48 years S/o Late Malegowda All are residing at: Kalli Koppal Village, Gavadgere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District – 571105.
... Petitioners (By Sri.B.S.Nagaraj, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, M.S.Buildding, Dr.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Mysuru District, Mysuru – 571105.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Harangi and Kabini Project, Near Jaganmohan Place, Mysore – 570001.
... Respondents (By Sri.Dildar Shiralli, HCGP) These Writ Petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District and respondent No.3-Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay the compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law as per the award passed by respondent No.3-Special Land acquisition Officer in made in case No.LAQRBC,28(A) 1/2009-
10 dated 16.07.2012 vide Annexure-A and re-determined made in case No.LAQRBC, 28(A) 1/2012-13 on 15.09.2012 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act vide at Annexure-C.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R In these Writ Petitions, the land owners, allegedly having lost their lands in the subject acquisition, have sought for a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner & respondent No.3 – SLAO to pay the compensation as determined in the award dated 16.07.2012 at Annexure-A and also for re-determination of the enhanced compensation under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act 1894 has been done vide order dated 15.09.2012 at Annexure-C. The short grievance of the petitioners thus in essence relates to non-payment of compensation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that although it is up to the State in exercise of the power of eminent domain to acquire the lands of the citizens, the same is inter alia subject to the rider that the compensation has to be paid especially in view of the constitutionally guaranteed Right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. He contends that delay or denial of payment of compensation determined or re-determined under the law is anathema to the constitutional jurisprudence.
3. The learned HCGP Sri.Dildar Shiralli, having accepted notice for the respondents opposes the Writ Petition stating that it is only a bare claim of the petitioners that they happen to be the owners of the lands in acquisition and therefore, in the absence of any important material to show their ownership, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction may not take up the adjudication of their claims.
4. Having so argued, now he submits that there will be no impediment for consideration of the petitioners claim for payment of compensation determined or re-determined in terms of the awards in question if a reasonable period is specified by this Court for undertaking the exercise and also if petitioners do co-operate by furnishing necessary information or documents as are required for due consideration of their claim. In view of the fair stand of the State, nothing more requires to be adjudicated upon in this case except making of the following order.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider petitioners’ claim for compensation for the lands lost in the acquisition in terms of the award dated 16.07.2012 at Annexure-A and another award dated 15.09.2012 at Annexure-C within a period of four weeks, and further to inform them the result of such consideration forthwith.
It is needless to mention that the respondents may solicit any documents or information as are required for considering their claim for releasing the compensation in a time bound manner.
Sd/- JUDGE NS