C. Rangaswamy vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer-II

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The brief facts are as follows:

"The petitioner had purchased land bearing CTS No. 1196 of Peenya Village measuring 25 yards x 25 yards. It is this land and property which was subject-matter of acquisition for the benefit of the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ''the KIAD Act'', for brevity), by issuance of notifications under Section 28(1) dated 22-2-2012 to acquire 53 sq. mts. out of the total extent of land belonging to the petitioners, of Peenya Village. The petitioner had resisted the same by filing his objections. However, respondent 1 had issued a final notification dated 28-8-2012 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act indicating the land to be acquired as 56.01 sq. mts., though the preliminary notification was only in respect of 53 sq. mts. and offered a package compensation in respect of the land and building. Though the petitioner had pointed out that there was a discrepancy insofar as the extent was concerned, the respondent had proceeded notwithstanding the said objection with the acquisition proceedings and the petitioner also did not readily accept the package compensation."

It is the petitioner''s case that without passing an award, possession had been taken not in accordance with law and the building of the petitioner was marked beyond the notified extent of 53 sq. ft., for purposes of demolition, on 4-10-2013. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.

On the question whether it was discrepancy insofar as 3.01 sq. mts. which was the excess notified portion under the final notification inconsistent with the extent shown in the preliminary notification, the learned Counsel for the respondent-BMRCL would readily concede that there is a discrepancy and in fact, would submit that the said extent of 3.01 sq. mts. has not been utilised for the project of the BMRCL and challenge to the same could be allowed in terms of the writ petition.

Insofar as the claim of the petitioner that a higher compensation ought to be awarded as against the rate of Rs. 28,277/- per sq. mt., on the footing that the lands adjacent to the National Highway have been valued at Rs. 54,315/- per sq. mt. for purposes of acquisition is concerned, it is pointed out that the petitioner cannot claim compensation at the same rate, since the land of the petitioner admittedly, is much beyond and off the National Highway and would not be entitled to the said rate and if the petitioner is not agreeable to the package compensation, a general award would be passed and hence, it is contended that the petition be disposed of while partially allowing the same insofar as 3.01 sq. mts. is concerned.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would point out that the entire compensation would have to be held to be bad if it is admitted by the respondents that there is a discrepancy insofar as the extent is concerned as between the preliminary and the final notification and further, the contention that the petitioner is not enabled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 54,315/- per sq. mt. as in the in the case of other lands adjacent to the National Highway, is also unfair, as it cannot be said that the petitioner''s land and building are away from the Highway, whereas there is only a service road which separates the petitioner''s land and the building from the National Highway and the petitioner would be certainly entitled to a much higher compensation.

Insofar as this controversy is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that choice is that of the petitioner to either accept the package compensation that is offered and which is arrived at after a considered decision by a Committee which is appointed for the said purpose, or to abide by an award that shall be passed as a general award, in the usual course. The possibility of the compensation being higher than what is offered under the package compensation cannot also be ruled out, as it is possible for the petitioner to urge the case after producing material in support of his contention that he is entitled to a larger compensation. There can be no assurance that the general award would fetch the petitioner such larger compensation, while it also cannot be ruled out and therefore would submit that there is no assurance either way.

In the above circumstances, having regard to the admitted circumstance that there was indeed a discrepancy between the preliminary and final notification and that the respondents do not require an excess of 3.01 sq. mts., which is apparently left untouched, the discrepancy would not result in the entire proceedings being vitiated, as contended by the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is allowed in part, holding that the final notification notifying the extent of 56.01 sq. mts. as against 53 sq. mts. as against the preliminary notification is bad, as having notified an excess of 3.01 sq. mts. To that extent, the final notification is quashed. In the result, the petitioner is entitled to retain 3.01 sq. mts. of land which is in respect of which the petitioner is not in doubt as to the location of the said extent as it is part of the land that is retained by him. Insofar as the enhanced compensation as sought for by the petitioner, is not capable of being granted at this point of time. If the petitioner chooses not to receive the package compensation as already determined, it would be for the petitioner to raise a claim under Section 29(3) of the KIAD Act read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which the petitioner shall do, in the usual course. With that observation, the petition is allowed in part in terms as above. The final notification in respect of the excess extent of 3.01 sq. mts. notified under notification dated 28-8-2012 stands quashed.