Smt. Janaki Naik and Others vs State of Karnataka

Ashok B. Hinchigeri

The petitioners'' grievance is that no compensation whatsoever is paid to them on account of the compulsory acquisition of the lands in respect of which they were the occupants. Sri Meghachandra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.1 to 6 have been in cultivation of the lands measuring 1.96 acres in Survey No.177/1, 2.08 acres in Survey No.290/1, 3.20 acres in Survey No.288/2, 2.31 acres in Survey No.60/2, 3.27 acres in Survey No.288/2 and 0.93 acres in Survey No.176/1A, respectively. All these lands are in Ira village of Bantwal Taluk. He brings to my notice the orders passed by the Regularisation Committee granting the lands to the petitioners; in respect of four petitioners, even the proceedings pursuant to the grant order are drawn. He submits that the necessary amounts as demanded by the authorities are already paid. When such was the state of affairs, the respondent No.1 acquired the lands in question for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (''KIADB'' for short) for the purpose of industrial development. The final notification u/s 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was issued on 7.5.2008. The petitioners made the requests and representations for passing the award in their favour and for the disbursement of compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners'' representations at Annexures- ''A'' to ''F'' wherein they have prayed for payment of the compensation-amounts.

Sri Venkatesh Dodderi, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 submits that these petitions are premature. He further submits that as per the endorsement dated 23.4.2010 (Annexure- ''P''), the 4th respondent Tahsildar has sought the necessary instructions from the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner. He submits that the matter has not attained the finality and if some more time is granted, the Deputy Commissioner will issue the necessary instructions.

Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners are not entitled to receive the compensation. He further submits that they are not the title-holders; the lands in question are the government lands; saguvali chits are not even issued to the petitioners; and their names do not figure in the record of rights and in the acquisition notifications. He submits that all those persons, whose names figured in the revenue records, have already received the compensation.

On hearing the learned advocates, the question that arises for my consideration is: whether the grantees of the government lands are entitled to the compensation on account of their compulsory acquisition?

To answer this question, it is necessary to advert to the relevant statutory provisions and the interpretation put on them. Sections 3(b) and 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read as follows:

3 (b). the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in the land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.

9 (3). The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorized to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.

The term "person interested in the land" is not given an exhaustive definition. Its inclusive definition has extended the concept of a "person interested" to the widest of amplitude. As a necessary consequence, apart from the land-owners, a mortgagee, a tenant, a lessee, a grantee, a person having easement over the land and a host of others would also come within the phraseology employed in Section 9(3) of the said Act. In taking this view, I am fortified by the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Gurdial Singh and Another,

I may usefully refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of V. Lakkanna (since deceased by his L.Rs.) and others -vs- Land Acquisition Officer and others (AIR 1990 KAR 192), wherein it is held that a "person interested" includes persons having no interest in the land acquired, but claiming interest in the compensation to be awarded. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted herein below:

He submitted, relying on the above judgment, that only a person having an interest in the immovable property was entitled to apportionment of compensation. It is true that the Division Bench has taken the view that only a person having an interest in the land acquired can claim compensation. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder Lal Vs. Paramsukhdas, was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The Supreme Court in that case interpreted the expression ''person interested'' as defined in S. 3(b) of the Act and held that it had a wider meaning, in that not only the person who has got an interest in the immovable property acquired but also a person who, though not having any interest in the immovable property acquired, has an interest to claim compensation, would have to be regarded as a person interested for the purpose of compensation proceedings.

It is also helpful to refer to the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Puran -vs- The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, reported in AIR 1976 HP 16, wherein it is held that a person in occupation of the property, whether in capacity of tenant or of licensee, is a ''person interested''.

The submission urged on behalf of the third respondent KIADB that only those persons, whose names figure in the revenue records and in the acquisition notifications, are entitled to receive the compensation is unpersuasive. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Bahori Lal Vs. Land Acquisition Officer and Others, has taken the considered view that, from the mere fact that the names of the petitioners do not stand recorded as tenants of the plots in question in the revenue records, it cannot be pleaded that they were not the persons interested in raising objections to the notifications. Even the non-owner of a property can legitimately claim the compensation, if he has legally recognizable interest in the land.

The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gandhamoyee Devi Vs. Collector of Kamrup, Gauhati, has held that any person affected by extinguishment of a right in the land is the person interested. The relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted herein below:

Now let us consider as to whether the appellant is a person interested or not. The meaning of the expression "person interested" will be a relevant consideration for determining point No. (iii) as well. Therefore, it is necessary to explain the meaning of the expression as understood in "the Act". The effect of Land Acquisition is to relinquish the rights of the owners in the land and to vest it exclusively in the Government. As such, any person affected by the extinguishment of the right in the land comes within the provision of S.3 (b) of "the Act" S. 11 of "the Act" provides that Collector must inquire into the respective interest of the person claiming interest and it is a condition precedent for making a valid award by the Collector.

Another judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court is also of immense value for deciding this case. In the case of Shashikant Gopaldas and Co. and Another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer at Ahmedabad, it is held that the tenant holding over has the right to get the compensation.

Section 30 of KIAD Act states that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 Of 1894) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner, the reference to court, the apportionment of compensation and the payment of compensation, in respect of lands acquired under this Chapter.

Thus, considering the statutory provisions and the interpretation that they have received, I find that the argument that only the title-holders or the persons, whose names figure in the revenue records, are entitled to receive the compensation is specious. The question raised is answered in the emphatic affirmative. When the acquisition takes place, the compensation has to be paid to all those who are displaced on account of the compulsory acquisition of lands. It cannot be restricted to the title-holders. When the land is compulsorily acquired, the rehabilitation has also got to be inclusive.

It is not in dispute that the Land Regularisation Committee has already passed the order granting the lands in question to the petitioners. The petitioners have also paid the requisite fee, a condition precedent for the grant of saguvali chit. But, before the saguvali chit could be issued, the compulsory acquisition came to be resorted to and hence the saguvali chits could not be issued to the petitioners. That the acquisition of land befell during the period of transition should not come in the way of the petitioners'' seeking the compensation. For all the aforesaid reasons, I hold that the petitioners are undoubtedly the persons interested in the lands in question. These petitions are allowed by directing to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to pass the award, in respect of the lands in question, covering the claims of the petitioners. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today''s order. No order as to costs.