IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION Nos.38715-38717/2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI P.NAGARAJU S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O MAYAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
(BY SRI RAJAGOPAL M.R., ADV.,) AND:
... PETITIONER 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & PRESRIBED AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-275 BANGALORE-MYSORE DIVISION, S.BASAVANAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
…RESP0NDENTS ( BY SRI E.S.INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1 SRI B.V.PRAKASH ANGADI, ADV., FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 VIDE ANNEX-D, THE AWARD NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 VIDE ANNEX-D1, THE NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 VIDE ANNEX-E, THE AWARD NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 VIDE ANNEX-E1, THE NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 VIDE ANNEX-F, AND THE AWARD NOTICE DTD.3.7.2017 VIDE ANNEX-F1 ALL ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND DRIECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE COMPENSATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 3-G OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956 ONLY UPON FOLLOWING SUCH PROCEDURE PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri Rajagopal M.R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri E.S.Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 Sri B.V.Prakash Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the impugned award notice dated 03.07.2017 and also seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the procedure prescribed for the purpose of determining the compensation as contemplated under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956, by following the procedure provided under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award suffers from the voice of non–application of mind, in which, the Land Acquisition Officer has failed to appreciate that the land in question was a converted land.
5. It is also pointed out that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the award in order to enable him to raise objections with regard to the award. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to approach the competent authority for appointment of an arbitrator for redressal of his grievance. On the other hand, in case, the petitioner approaches the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
6. In view of the submission made and taking into account the provisions contained under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that, in case, the petitioner files an application before the competent authority for reference of redressal of disputes, the competent authority shall refer the disputes for arbitration within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Thereafter, the arbitrator shall proceed to deal with the objections, which may raised by the petitioner and shall conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of reference.
With the aforesaid direction, petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PB