Siddaiah vs The Principal Secretary

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking that the mandamus be issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to pay the compensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act for the super structure (Malki) and other developments made on the land bearing Sy. No. 113/1, 115/2 and 116 totally measuring 4 acres 11 guntas in Marase village, Varna Hobli, Mysore Taluk in terms of the assessment made and the amount quantified at Annexure-E to the petition.

The petitioner claims to be the owner of the agricultural land measuring 4 acres 11 guntas in Sy. No. 113/1, 115/2 and 116 of Marase village, Varna Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The respondents No. 1 to 3 issued a notification in the year 2001 and the possession of the said land was taken in the year 2005 so as to utilize the said land to develop the Airport in Mysore. The issue herein is with regard to the compensation payable to the petitioner towards the super structure-Malki which existed in the said land. The petitioner contends that as per the assessment made by the respondents themselves, the value payable in respect of the Malki is at Rs. 66,51,001/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of sufficient time, the said amount has not been paid to the petitioner. It is in that view, the petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus.

Before adverting to the claim made, the sequence of the proceedings before this Court also requires to be noticed. Insofar as the amount as claimed by the petitioner, this Court had at the earlier instance noticed that the respondents No. 2 and 3 had indicated that the amount would be disbursed and would be reported to this Court. However, subsequently when the petition was listed on 25.11.2013, the respondents No. 1 to 3 who were the only respondents at that stage had not shown progress. Hence, this Court indicated that if such disbursement is not made, this Court would be constrained to allow the writ petition summarily. Notwithstanding the same, when the petition was relisted on 04.12.2013, it was indicated that the Airports Authority of India is the beneficiary and the Infrastructure Department of the State is in charge of providing such infrastructure and they are necessary parties to the instant petition. Accordingly, they have been impleaded as respondents No. 4 and 5. The respondent No. 5 viz., the beneficiary of the acquisition though served has not chosen to appear before this Court and the Infrastructure Department of the state has not taken any steps. The sequence has been noticed only to indicate the manner in which the respondents have been prolonging the issue by shifting the burden on each of the respondents instead of compensating the land-loser in accordance with law.

Be that as it may, what is necessary for consideration herein is the payment of compensation to the petitioner which is his entitlement as per law. Insofar as the claim made by the petitioner, it is based on the document at Annexure-E as has been assessed by respondents No. 1 and 2 themselves. Even otherwise, in the instant petition, the claim that is put forth by the petitioner towards the value of the Malkis has not been disputed. But, all that has been stated by respondents No. 1 and 2 is that they are only an acquiring agency and the payment in that regard is to be made by the infrastructure department after securing the amount from the beneficiary. The communication dated 27.08.2013 is also relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 to indicate that the same has been addressed to respondent No. 4 seeking for deposit of the amount indicated therein which also includes the claim of the petitioner towards the lands/Malkis therein.

Having referred to these aspects, what is necessary to be ensured is that the first and fourth respondents should take immediate steps to provide necessary funds to respondents No. 2 and 3 to make appropriate payment of the compensation to the land losers from whom the acquisition has been made. Though the learned Government Advocate would contend that the beneficiary is required to pay the said amount and as such the first and fourth respondent can only secure the said amount from the beneficiary viz., the fifth respondent. Even if that so the necessary steps are to be taken by the first and fourth respondent in the manner known to law by securing the amount from the beneficiary. In fact the respondents ought to have ensured that the beneficiary deposits the amount before the property is acquired. In the circumstance, in any event, the land-losers cannot be made to suffer, by the respondents shifting the blame on each other. Hence, the entire process would have to be completed in a time frame.

Therefore respondent No. 1 and 4 are directed to take steps forthwith to secure the amount payable due to be paid by respondent No. 5 in an expeditious manner, but not later than two months from the date on which the copy of this order is furnished to respondent No. 1 and 4. It is made clear that even if the respondents No. 1 and 4 are unable to recover the amount from respondent No. 5 in the meanwhile, respondents No. 1 and 4 themselves shall deposit the amount as per the request made by respondents No. 2 and 3 through their letter dated 27.08.2013 by providing funds to respondents No. 2 and 3 within the said period of two months. On deposit of the amount by respondents No. 1 and 4 with respondents No. 2 and 3 within the said period of two months, the respondents No. 2 and 3 shall take all steps to disburse the amount to the petitioner assessed towards the Malkis as per the statement at Annexure-E and such disbursement of the amount shall be made by respondents No. 2 and 3 within three weeks from the date of the initial period of two months which has been indicated above to enable the respondents No. 1 and 4 to deposit the amount in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3.

Therefore, the disbursement of the amount payable to the petitioner shall be made in any event within the outer limit of two months and three weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is made available to all the respondents. All the respondents herein shall be jointly responsible for implementation of this order.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.