M. Ramanatha Rao vs The State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 17.10.2013 impugned at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to the respondents to pay the amount as resolved in the meeting held by respondent No. 2 on 27.05.2011 with the land owners at the rate of Rs. 930/- per sq.ft.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 6 guntas in Sy. No. 101/1 of Kallahalli village which is said to have been utilized by the respondents for widening of the road from Kuvempu road via Microwave station upto Thunganala. In view of the urgency involved, the respondents are stated to have negotiated with the land owners to agree upon a price and to utilize the said lands. The petitioner in that regard is relying on the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 (Annexure-F) wherein the Deputy Commissioner on taking note of the land value subsisting for residential purpose as well as the commercial purpose has ultimately decided the value payable at Rs. 930/- per sq.ft. The petitioner is therefore seeking payment of the compensation at the said rate. The petitioner has also relied on the agreement-cum-sale deed dated 27.06.2012 at Annexure-G to the petition to contend that another extent of land belonging to the petitioner which has been utilized has been considered in such manner and the compensation at Rs. 930/- per sq.ft. has been granted towards 4628 sq.ft. in the very same Sy. No. 101/3 of Kallahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Shimoga Taluk. The petitioner claiming compensation in respect of the remaining 6 guntas had made a representation, but by the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 at Annexure-H, the Deputy Commissioner has indicated that the compensation can only be paid by reckoning the same at Rs. 12,35,000/- per acre and the commensurate amount for 6 guntas at Rs. 1,85,250/- would be paid. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by such decision of the respondents is before this Court.

Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed their statement of objections. A perusal of the same would indicate that there is no serious dispute with regard to the ownership of the property. However, the very same reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order at Annexure-H have been reiterated in the objection statement to contend with regard to the manner in which the compensation is payable by reckoning the market value of the property per acre and the amount for the extent of 6 guntas be accordingly paid. It is also contended that the property in question can neither be considered as residential or commercial but was being utilized for a graveyard. The compensation as has been reckoned for the other properties cannot be granted, is the contention.

Respondent No. 4 has also filed its objection statement. Though essentially the question of payment of compensation and the rate at which it is payable is between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 to 3, respondent No. 4 has however contended that at an earlier point, there was a resolution passed by respondent No. 4 with regard to utilization of the subject 6 guntas of land as a part of the graveyard measuring about 2 acres 18 guntas. In that view, it is contended that the petitioner had also addressed a letter agreeing to gift the land to respondent No. 4 for the said purpose and therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim compensation for the said extent of 6 guntas which could have been utilized by respondent No. 4 as a part of the graveyard if it was not utilised for the road. Hence, the respondents seek to resist the claim made by the petitioner and pray for dismissal of the petition.

In the light of the rival pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. From the averments made therein, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the said extent of 6 guntas which is the subject of the instant petition is owned by the petitioner from the very fact that the second respondent by the impugned order has offered compensation based on the method indicated therein. The issue for consideration is as to whether the petitioner should be denied compensation to the said land since it is contended by the fourth respondent that the land is utilized for graveyard. The further point is the rate at which the petitioner can claim compensation if the consideration is that the same remained to be the land belonging to the petitioner as on the date when the said land was utilized for the purpose of widening the road.

To consider the above aspects, a perusal of the objection statement of respondent No. 4 and the Annexures therein would indicate that the resolution as relied on at Annexure-R1 is no doubt the one passed by respondent No. 4 to utilize the land measuring 6 guntas also as a part of the graveyard. Even if that be so, there should have been appropriate proceedings or documentation for receiving the land from the petitioner or there should have been documents indicating that the petitioner has relinquished his right in favour of respondent No. 4. The communication at Annexure-R3 though relied upon has not been carried further to complete the transaction and to make the documentation. The said extent of 6 guntas continue to remain the property of the petitioner as on the date when the decision was taken to widen the road and utilize the property belonging to private owners by negotiation rather than by acquisition. As noticed even by the order impugned, the compensation is offered, but at a different rate and it would indicate that the petitioner continued as owner. If that be so, the consideration as made in the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 would become relevant for the said purpose.

Though the learned Government Advocate contends that even in the said proceedings, the rate indicated therein is neither for residential or commercial property and therefore the rate at Rs. 930/- per sq.ft. which is indicated to have been determined cannot be accepted, what is necessary to be kept in view is that while taking note of the market value in the process of acquisition, the other components also would be kept in view such as consortium, additional market value and the interest thereof to arrive at a quantum. Further the offer made should be attractive to make the landowner to submit the land to the acquisition. However, since the same would arise only in the process while determining the compensation, if the compensation is being fixed based on the mutual negotiations, the determination as made in the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 would have to be accepted, more particularly when the petitioner has relied on the document at Annexure-G dated 27.06.2012 to indicate that subsequent to the said proceedings, the petitioner himself has been paid at that rate in respect of another extent of the land measuring 4628 sq.ft. in the same Sy. No. 101. Further what is also necessary to be noticed is that the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 is concluded in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner who has signed the said proceedings.

In that light, the impugned order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the subsequent Deputy Commissioner cannot overlook the earlier proceedings, more particularly when the same has attained finality and the other land owners including the petitioner for another extent have been paid compensation at that rate by way of negotiations. In that view, the order impugned dated 17.10.2013 at Annexure-H would not be sustainable. The same is accordingly quashed.

The second respondent shall now take note of the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 as also the document dated 27.06.2012 at Annexure-G to the petition whereunder the rate agreed in the proceedings dated 27.05.2011 has been implemented and if all other land owners whose lands were utilised for the same purpose have been granted the compensation at the very same rate, the petitioner shall also be granted the compensation at the same rate since the property belonging to the petitioner has been utilized based on the negotiations without undertaking the process of acquisition.

To enable the said consideration to be made by the second respondent, the petitioner shall now file a representation along with a copy of this order with the second respondent. The second respondent shall keep in view the above observations, calculate the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner and intimate the same to the petitioner in an expeditious manner, but not later than two months from the date on which the representation is made and the compensation shall be paid thereafter.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.