IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.14114 OF 2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO.14682 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Siddappa S/o Mallanna Aged about 60 years Jakkasandra Village Kasaba Hobli Kolar District – 570 101.
2. Sri.Pratap Singh S/o Anantharamaiah Aged about 58 years No.274, 1st Cross 2nd Block, Channigaiah Layout Tygarajanagara Bangalore – 560 028.
…Petitioners (By Sri.S.R.Sreenivasamurthy, Advocate) AND:
1. The Chief Secretary State of Karnataka Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue Vidhana Soudha Bangalore – 560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner Kolar District Kolar – 570 101.
4. The Assistant Commissioner Kolar Sub-Division Kolar – 570 101.
5. Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 14/2, Arvinda Bhavana 1st Floor, Nrupathunga Road Bangalore – 560 001.
...Respondents (By Sri.Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R1 to R4 Sri.B.B.Patil, Advocate for R5) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records in LAQ 08/2013-14 from the office of R-5 and issue writ of mandamus against R5 to consider representation at Annexure-F1 dated 6.7.2015, F2-dated 1.8.2015 and F3 dated 11.7.2016 and direct R-5 to disburse/pay tender compensation amount awarded in respect of schedule property bearing Sy.No.121 an extent of 2 acres at Jakkasandra Village, Malur, Kasaba Hobli, in the name of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners’ land measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.121 of Jakkasandra Village in Malur Taluk was acquired for the benefit of the respondent-KIADB. The award was passed on 10.11.2017 and the compensation amount has been deposited in the District Court at Kolar on January 1, 2018.
2. The compensation amount having not been released to the petitioners, they are before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the 5th respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer for taking steps for releasing the said compensation amount.
3. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance; the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 are represented by learned HCGP Sri.Dildar Shiralli; 5th respondent-SLAO of KIADB is represented by the Panel Counsel Sri.B.B.Patil, who has also filed the Statement of Objections as well resisting the Writ Petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there being no rival claim by any one, the compensation has to be paid to the owners whose names are reflected in the acquisition notifications, they being the khathedars; there is absolutely no reason to deny or delay the payment of compensation.
5. Per contra, the learned Panel Counsel for the respondent-SLAO of KIADB submits that the SLAO vide letter dated 24.09.2016 at Annexure-D had enquired with the 4th respondent-Assistant Commissioner, as to whether the land in question is a ‘granted land’ as defined under Section 2 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978; in turn, 4th respondent-Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 08.11.2016 at Annexure-E answered the question in the affirmative; in view of that, KIADB deposited the compensation amount with the jurisdictional Court ie., Court of learned District Judge at Kolar. Learned HCGP too makes submission echoes the same. However, he adds that the Sale Deed of petitioners is null & void.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for opposing parties. I have perused the petitions’ papers and also the statement of objections filed by 5th respondent-SLAO.
7. The fact that: the petitioners were owners of the land in question, the said land has been acquired by awarding compensation, that the compensation has not been released to the petitioners, is not in dispute. Withholding of the compensation to the owners of the land in acquisition is violative of land owners’ constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India; the alleged version of the respondents that the land is a granted land is a feeble justification for denying or delaying the payment of compensation as long as the title thereto is not restored to the grantees or any one claiming under the grantees by taking appropriate action in accordance with law.
8. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. GURDEV SINGH AND ASHOK KUMAR AIR 1992 SC 111 wherein at Para 7, it has been held as under:-
"The truth of the matter is that the Court will invalidate an order only if the right remedy is sought by the right person in the right proceedings and circumstances. The order may be hypothetically a nullity, but the Court may refuse to quash it because of the plaintiff's lack of standing, because he does not deserve a discretionary remedy, because he has waived his rights, or for some other legal reason. In any such case the 'void' order remains effective and is, in reality, valid."
9. The contention of the counsel for the repondents that land in question is a granted land does not come to the aid of the respondents in as much as the Apex Court in the case of NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1390 OF 2009 disposed of on 26.10.2017 has observed that unreasonably delayed proceedings for resumption of the granted land is not permissible. Admittedly, proceedings for resumption are not yet initiated under law and therefore, there is no cloud on the petitioners’ title to the land, and now to the compensation after acquisition thereof. There is no other reason as to why the relief to the petitioners should be denied by the Court of equity.
10. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are allowed; the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Kolar is directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for release of the compensation amount keeping in view of the observations made herein above, within a period of four weeks, after hearing the stake holders, if any and submit a report of compliance to the Registry of this Court.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*