IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL WRIT PETITION No.37038 OF 2017[LA-KIADB] BETWEEN:
M/S.YELLAMMA DASAPPA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, UNDER AUSPICIOUS OF YELLAMMA DASAPPA MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION TRUST, NO.421, 3RD CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE – 560 027, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE OF SRI D.RAVINDRANATH S/O.D.DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY:SRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.M.NARAYANASWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN, NO.14/1, 1ST FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, (LAND ACQUISITION) B.M.R.C.L. BMTC COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 027. ...RESPONDENTS (BY:SRI VIJAYA KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 & R2: SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3: SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 16.5.2017 PASSED BY THE R3 FIXING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE ACQUIRED PROPERTY AT RS.4,86,713/- AT ANNEXURE-L, TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE R3 AT ANNEXURE-N AND TO DIRECT THE R3 AND R4 TO RELEASE THE SAID COMPENSTION AMOUNT OF RS.14,60,54,884/- IN FAVOUR OF PETITONER AS PER CONSENT AWARD DATED 8.2.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent nos.1 and 2.
2. Learned Counsel Mr. P.V.Chandrashekar and Mr.K.Krishna have filed vakalath for respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively .
3. As a short question arises for consideration, though this matter is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
4. At the outset, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that similar controversy raised has been considered and disposed of in W.P.Nos.39611-612/2016 vide order dated 16.09.2016 passed by this Court.
5. Challenge in this writ petition is to the general award dated 16.05.2016 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru, determining compensation payable in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.6/1, 6/4 and 7 totally measuring 1193.00 square meters situated at Raghuvanahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Copy of the award is produced at Annexure-L.
6. The main grievance made by the petitioner is that though the petitioner was willing for passing a consent award based on the agreement in terms of the provision contained under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the Act’), the respondent-authorities without providing such opportunity, have passed the general award.
7. According to the petitioner, in respect of similarly placed persons, KIADB has passed consent award by determining and paying higher compensation, whereas for those who have not agreed and consented, compensation determined has been paltry.
8. Mr.Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, this Court having noticed the provision contained under Section 29(2) of the Act regarding the right of petitioner to have the compensation determined by agreement and consent, has set aside the general award and has issued direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to determine the compensation afresh taking note of the consent and agreement of the land owner, in so far as it pertained to the petitioners therein.
9. Mr.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent no.3–KIADB takes me through the statement of objections and submits that one Smt.Gowramma has filed objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) [Metro]-KIADB for disbursal of compensation. He submits that if the petitioner and Smt.Gowramma express their consent for payment of compensation, then SLAO would disburse the compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act.
10. Per contra, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel submits that Smt.Gowramma has no right or interest in the property in question and indeed, she had earlier filed Writ Petition No.21822/2016 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 7.4.2017, as is evident from Annexure-M. He, therefore, contends that in view of the dismissal of said writ petition as withdrawn, Smt.Gowramma cannot have any objection for payment of compensation in favour of petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act.
11. In the order passed in the connected matter, paragraph 3 can be usefully extracted, which reads as under:
“3. In the circumstances, these petitions are allowed. General award at Annexure-F in so far as it relates to petitioners, is quashed. A direction shall ensue to the third respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB, to consider the case of the petitioners for determination of compensation by way of agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, to be complied with as expeditiously as possible within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that this order is applicable if there is no dispute to title to the immovable property acquired and if there is one, then the general award in so far as petitioners are concerned will stand restored, until the dispute is resolved in favour of the petitioners. The third respondent is permitted to withdraw the award amount in relation to the aforesaid land, if deposited in the Civil Court. No costs.”
12. Upon hearing learned counsel for all the parties, I find that Respondent no.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer has to first consider the tenability of objections filed by Smt.Gowramma and pass an order. Hence, the general award, which is impugned in this writ petition is set aside and the consequential endorsement dated 18.5.2017, vide Annexure-N also stands quashed.
13. The matter is remitted to SLAO with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of compensation in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act. If SLAO comes to the conclusion that Smt.Gowramma has no right or interest in the property acquired, then there will be no impediment for SLAO to pay the compensation under Section 29(2) of the Act based on the consent of petitioner. If, however, SLAO comes to the conclusion that Smt.Gowramma has any subsisting interest and has objection for payment of compensation, the same shall be paid by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, particularly, Sections 30 and 31 of the Act.
14. If the award amount is already deposited before the Civil Court, then SLAO is at liberty to withdraw the same for the purpose of disbursal in accordance with law.
Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondents 1 & 2 within three weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR