Arumugam vs The Chairman, The Metro Rail Corporation Limited

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 46447/2011 has filed this appeal, assailing order dated March 12, 2012 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. By that order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Subsequently, Review Petition No. 206/2012 was also preferred by the petitioner. On August 22, 2012, the review petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved by those orders, the petitioner has preferred this appeal. The writ appeal has been listed to consider IA No. 1/2015 seeking permission to amend the writ petition. During the course of considering that application, we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the consent award made by the respondents is not in accordance with law as it is discriminatory, because in respect of an adjacent land acquired by the respondents i.e. Munichikkanna''s land, enhanced compensation was awarded. But, insofar as appellant''s land is concerned, a sum of Rs. 68,35,177/- only was awarded. It was sought to be contended that the appellant was also entitled to the enhanced compensation and therefore, the consent award was assailed in the writ petition and hence, permission may be granted to amend the writ petition so as to bring on record, certain documents and facts.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting the orders passed by the learned single Judge, contended that the appellant came forward to accept the amount which was awarded by consent, under a package scheme, without any protest and subsequently, the appellant could not assail the same or seek re-opening of the said award at the hands of this Court. He, therefore submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the same may be dismissed.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

It is not in dispute that the land of the appellant was acquired by the respondent - authority for an industrial purpose. Under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, notice was issued to the appellant in order to ascertain as to whether he was interested in seeking compensation under that provision, by consent of the parties. A copy of that notice dated June 19, 2010 is produced as Document No. 8 to the statement of objections filed by the respondent No. 1. Thereafter, on June, 24, 2010, the appellant submitted the relevant documents to the respondent-authority and on June 18, 2010, the respondent-authority made the calculation of the amount due to the appellant as compensation for the acquisition of his land. The calculation sheet is at Annexure-L to the writ petition. Thereafter, appellant as well as the respondents entered into an agreement with regard to the award of compensation to the appellant and accordingly, the compensation was determined at Rs. 68,35,177/-. In fact, the total compensation amount awarded was Rs. 75,94,641/- and income-tax on the said amount was deducted, which was Rs. 7,59,464/- and the balance amount of Rs. 68,35,177/- was paid and accepted by the appellant. The appellant received a cheque for the aforesaid amount dated August 16, 2010 and has also encashed that cheque after issuing a receipt in that regard, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R1. On perusal of the said receipt, we note that no protest was registered by the appellant at the time of receipt of the said amount.

Learned counsel for the appellant sought to justify the receipt of the said amount at that stage, without having protested, by contending that he had certain loans to be discharged and therefore he was constrained to receive that amount. But, thereafter, he realized that the award of compensation was on the lower side.

Such an argument cannot be advanced at a later stage and we think it is only an after thought. When the appellant, with open eyes, agreed to the compensation amount to be awarded by the respondents and also issued an acknowledgement of receipt of the same and has encashed the amount, he is estopped from contending later that the award amount received by consent, is not in accordance with law as it is meager as compared to the compensation awarded in respect of another land owner.

We find that the learned single Judge was right in holding that the appellant had accepted the compensation without any protest, under a package scheme and therefore, it was not open for him to get the award re-opened by seeking a direction at the hands of this Court. We find no infirmity in the orders of the learned single Judge.

Writ appeal is dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, LA No. 1/2015 does not require any further consideration and the same is also dismissed.