IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.95 OF 2015 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.278 OF 2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PODIUM BLOCK, SRI M.V. TOWERS, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . HEMAVATHI WIFE OF LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.128, 6TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
A) NANDISH SON OF LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.128, 6TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
B) VINAY SON OF LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.128, 6TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
2. PARVATHAMMA WIFE OF LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.856, 14TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
A) DEEPAK SON OF LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.856, 14TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
B) BHAVYA DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.856, 14TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION, (B.M.R.C.L.) III FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
4. CHINNAPPA SON OF APPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1002/A, 17TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.
5. SUSHEELAMMA WIFE OF LATE BHAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.196, OLD BAYYAPANAHALLI, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 033.
6. YOGESHA SON OF LATE BHAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.196, OLD BAYYAPANAHALLI, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 033.
7. SANTHOSH SON OF LATE BHAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.196, OLD BAYYAPANAHALLI, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 033.
8. MADHU SON OF LATE BHAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.196, OLD BAYYAPANAHALLI, M.S. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 033.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.B. RAJU, ADV. FOR R1 (A&B) AND R2 (A&B); SRI K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI T.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R4,R5,R7 & R8; SRI R.P. SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE;
SRI T.R. RAMESH, ADVOCATE AND SRI G.S. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.12793-12794 OF 2012 (LA-RES) AND ETC.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 12.12.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.12793-12794 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge directed disbursement of compensation to the writ petitioners therein in respect of the lands in question, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Single Judge have filed these appeals.
2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State disputes the grant of compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the writ petition and has directed payment of compensation which is erroneous. Therefore, he pleads that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in passing the impugned order and hence, interference is called for.
3. The same is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents - writ petitioners. He pleads that the material on record indicates that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, and the same has not been appropriately considered by the learned Single Judge. On considering the material on record, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for.
4. The plea of the petitioners in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the representations. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge should have ordered a mandamus or not. To go into the question of the legal entitlement of the compensation to be paid to the petitioners was not within the jurisdiction of a writ court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed an error in directing compensation to be paid to the petitioners. The writ court could however grant or reject the relief of mandamus. Therefore, it is the discretion of the authority to consider the representation one way or the other. The issue of a writ of mandamus does not indicate consideration of the representation in favour of the petitioners. The respondents shall consider the representation in accordance with law and facts.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ appeals are allowed. The aforesaid order dated 12.12.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.12793- 12794 of 2012, is set-aside. The second appellant namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to consider the representations of the writ petitioners dated 26.08.2011, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Pending I.A.s are dismissed as being infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-