IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.40715-719 OF 2018 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MRS SYDANABI AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, W/O LATE S MOHAMED SHARIFF, RESIDING AT NO 38/2, 7TH MAIN, SANGAM CIRCLE, PADARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560026.
2. MR SHABBIR AHMED SHARIFF AGED ABOTU 43 YEARS, S/O LATE S MOHAMMED SHARIFF, RESIDING AT NO: 38/2 7TH MAIN, SANGAM CIRCLE PADARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560026.
(By Mr. PRADEEP J S ON BEHALF OF Mr. SUBBA SHASTRY N, ADV.) AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT NEW DELHI – 110075.
… PETITIONERS 2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP. BY PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NH-575, BASAVANAPURA, RAMANAGARA – 5621283, 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY 275, BASVANAPURA, RAMANAGARA - 562128 4. C MANJANNA S/O LATE CHINNAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDENTS OF KEMPENAHALLI VILLAGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA – 562128.
5. THIMMAPPA S/O LATE CHINNAGIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF KEMPENAHALLI VILLAGE, MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA - 562128 6. GANGAMMA D/O LATE CHINNAGIRIYAPPA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31 1ST MAIN ROAD 8TH CROSS DEEPANJALINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 026 (By Mr. S S HAVERI, CGC FOR R1 & R2, … RESPONDENTS Mr. B V PRAKASH ANGADI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3, Mr. H N BASAVARAJU, ADV. FOR R4 TO R6 ADV.) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE ACQUISITION AND DISBURSEMENT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT WITH RESPECT TO CONVERTED SY.NO.48/2 NOW PHODED AS SY NO.48/10, 48/8, 48/7, 48/11 BEARING VILLAGE PANCHAYAT KATHA NO:174/48/2/174 SITUATED AT KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Pradeep J.S., learned counsel for Mr.Subba Shastry N., learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.S.S.Haveri, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.B.V.Prakash Angadi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 Mr.H.N.Basavaraju, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of certiorari for quashment of impugned award dated 30.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 by which respondent Nos.4 to 6 have been held entitled to compensation in respect of the land in question. The petitioners also seek quashment of the impugned award notices as well as the writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to deposit the amount of compensation in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioner No.2.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions briefly stated are that the land bearing Sy.No.48/2 measuring to the extent of 1 acre and 30½ guntas situated at Kempanahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk belongs to the father of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. The aforesaid land was converted on 06.09.1994 for non-agricultural purposes. On the same day, the father of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 sold the land in question to petitioner No.1. The name of the petitioner No.1 was also entered in the revenue records. It is the case of the petitioners that on 11.09.2017, the petitioner No.1 gifted the property in favour of the petitioner No.2. It is also averred in the petitions that the land in question was acquired under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). The petitioner No.1 thereupon gave a representation on 02.08.2016 to respondent No.3 and asserted that he is the owner of the land in question and furnished a copy of the sale deed and conversion certificate and made a prayer to disburse the amount of compensation in his favour. However, by the impugned award, the compensation was directed to be disbursed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the competent authority, in any case, was required to refer the provisions contained in Section 3A of the Act to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction for adjudication of the question of entitlement to receive the amount. However, the amount of compensation was disbursed which has been withdrawn by respondent Nos.4 to 6. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 be directed to deposit the amount of compensation which is received by them in the year 2017. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to decision of the Division Bench of this Court in ‘B.L.SRIDHAR Vs. B.R.PATHI’ LAWS (KAR) 2013 5 9 and Division Bench decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.13850/2014 passed on 22.04.2015.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 submitted that at the time of withdrawal of the amount, respondent Nos.4 to 6 had furnished an indemnity bond and even today, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are required to furnish the indemnity bond in view of the deposit of the amount. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.4 to 6 are entitled to receive the amount of compensation and not the petitioners.
7. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. Section 3H(4) of the Act reads as under:
3H(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.
8. Thus, from perusal of Section 3H(4) of the Act, it is evident that whenever there is a dispute with regard to the title of the property, the competent authority is required to refer the same to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. In the instant case, the petitioners had made a claim on the property in question on 02.08.2016. However, without adjudicating the claim of the petitioners, the amount of compensation was disbursed in favour of the respondent Nos.4 to 6. The Division Benches of this Court in B.L.SRIDHAR supra, as well as Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.13850/2014, have held that the dispute is required to be adjudicated and is being further held that the parties who have received the compensation, should deposit the amount and the decision be taken by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction to whom reference is to be made under Section 3H(4) of the Act.
9. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and taking into account the fact that there is a dispute with regard to entitlement of amount of compensation, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.4 to 6 to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of two months from today with the competent authority. On such deposit being made, the competent authority shall keep the entire amount in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalised Bank and thereafter, disburse the same to the parties after a decision is taken by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the Act. Needless to state that on reference being made, the principal civil court of original jurisdiction shall decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such a dispute.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the petitions are disposed of. The competent authority shall make a reference to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within a period of two months from the date the amount is deposited by respondent Nos.4 to 6.
Sd/- JUDGE RV