AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
Petitioners were the owners of lands situated in Thattanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for development of industrial area by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board under preliminary notification dated 01.02.2003 and final notification dated 15.03.2004, issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ''Act''). Award was passed on 30.11.2005. The petitioners consented for payment and executed indemnity bonds, whereafter, the agreed amount was paid during 2005, in full settlement of their claim. Some other owners of the lands acquired under the same notifications did not enter into agreements and receive the compensation amount. They being dissatisfied with the award passed on 30.11.2005, sought reference to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of their acquired property. Reference having not been made, W.P. Nos. 24492/2004, 27131/2004 and 27138/2004 were filed and was allowed on 05.10.2005. In pursuance thereof, reference was made to the Civil Court on 25.07.2006 and was registered as LAC. Nos. 202/2006, 207/2006 and 208/2006. During the pendency of the said cases, the petitioners therein entered into agreements with respondent Nos. 6 and 7 i.e., the beneficiary of the land acquisition, on 27.10.2010, with regard to the monetary compensation. Memos were filed in the said cases on 27.10.2010 and the reference applications were dismissed as withdrawn.
2 The petitioners got caused a notice dated 02.05.2011, as at Annexure-N, demanding redetermination of the compensation. Alleging inaction on the part of the respondents, these writ petitions have been filed to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to consider the demand made by the petitioners in their notice, as at Annexure-N or in the alternative to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to take steps to award the additional compensation by keeping in view the compensation quantified with reference to other land owners as spelled out in the memorandum of understanding and also the market value determined in respect of Government land, as per Official Memorandum dated 05.11.2008, as at Annexure ''G''.
Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended as follows:
i. By not paying fair compensation amount to the petitioners in respect of acquisition of their lands, the respondents have violated Article 300A of Constitution of India.
ii. There is discrimination in the matter of payment of compensation to the petitioners, in that, not only higher compensation was paid to the three other owners whose lands were acquired under the very same notification, but much higher value was paid to the Government land as per Official Memorandum dated 05.11.2008, as at Annexure G and in the circumstances there is a need for re-determination of the compensation amount payable in view of the provision made u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894.
iii. The petitioners have to be paid the compensation at the rate as appearing in the Official Memorandum dated 05.11.2008. as Annexure-G or at least with reference to the payments made to the three other land owners in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding as at Annexures-L to L2.
iv. The petitioners succumbed to the acts of misrepresentation by the respondents. Inasmuch as there is discrimination between the petitioners and the petitioners in LAC Nos. 202, 207 & 208 of 2006.
Reliance was placed on. the decision in the case of V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and Another, .
Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on the other hand contended that, the Act is a special enactment with a special purpose of achieving rapid and systematic development of industries and industrial areas in the State of Karnataka and that the Act provides for determination of compensation by agreement in the first instance and if compensation cannot be determined by mutual agreement, the Act provides for passing of general award, as is clear from Section 29 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that, in order to explore the possibility of reaching agreement on the quantum of compensation, notices were issued to all the land owners to participate in the meeting of the Price Advisory Committee presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of the District and in the meeting held, the land owners participated and based on the sales statistics/data pertaining to the relevant period, discussions having been made, it was agreed that compensation at the rate of 4,00,000/- per acre of acquired land should be paid to the land owners of Thattanahalli Village, whose lands were acquired pursuant to the notifications dated 01.02.2003 and 15.03.2004. Learned counsel further submitted that, all the petitioners accepted the said rate and came forward seeking payment of compensation at agreed rate and accordingly upon execution of the agreements, compensation was paid, which was voluntarily accepted by them and that they also executed the indemnity bonds. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount received having been enjoyed, about 7 years later, an untenable notice as at Annexure-N, having been got caused, without a cause of action, the writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel submitted that, three other owners whose lands were proposed to be acquired on 01.02.2003 and was acquired on 15.03.2004, who did not accept the compensation amount in terms of the discussions held in the meeting convened by the Deputy Commissioner, considering their claims, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 30.11.2005, which having been found to be not acceptable, W.P. Nos. 24492/2004, 27131/2004 and 27138/2004 were filed, which were disposed of on 05.10.2005 and consequently reference was made to Civil Court u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act and before the reference could be adjudicated and decided, on account of an amicable settlement, between the petitioners in the said reference cases and respondents 6 & 7 herein, Memorandum of Understanding as at Annexures - L to L2 having been entered into between them and stated before the Reference Court, the said reference cases were disposed of as withdrawn on 27.10.2010. He submitted that, there is no determination of market value of the acquired lands by the Civil Court. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents 1 to 5 had no role to play in the matter of settlement entered into by the petitioners in LAC Nos. 202, 207 & 208 of 2006 and the respondents 6 & 7 herein and hence the Memorandum of Understanding entered into on 27.10.2010 is not binding on respondents 1 to 5. Learned counsel further submitted that, there was 2.22 acres of Government land, which was not acquired pursuant to the notification dated 15.03.2004 and that the Government, on 19.06.2007, permitted the Deputy Commissioner to grant the said land in exercise of the power under Rule 20 of Land Grant Rules and the Deputy Commissioner issued an Official Memorandum dated 05.11.2008, as at Annexure-G and granted the land to respondents 6 & 7, subject to payment of 55,44,422/- i.e., towards land cost and other charges. Pursuant to the said order and the payment, land was transferred to respondents 6 & 7. He further submitted that the said grant by the Government in favour of respondents 6 & 7 and the petitioners'' properties have no relevance of whatsoever nature in matter of compensation payable to the petitioners, who consented to receive the compensation, executed the agreements and indemnity bonds and thereafter received the compensation during 2005. The payment having been made in full to the petitioners i.e., in terms of the agreements and indemnity bonds executed, the notice caused as at Annexure-N and the writ petition filed, after long delay, besides being not maintainable, is also hit by delay and laches and sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
Sri S. S. Naganand, learned Senior Advocate appealing for respondents 6 & 7, contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act has no application. The petitioners entered into agreements with regard to compensation amount payable for acquisition of their lands and received the compensation amount as per the agreements. After 5 years of payment having been received, the claim made as per Annexure-N is untenable. The petitioners in LAC Nos. 202, 207 & 208 of 2006 had not entered into agreement and did not receive any compensation by mutual agreement. The settlement between the petitioners in the said LAC cases and respondents 6 & 7 is a private arrangement, with regard to which, the respondents 1 to 5 had no say. The consideration paid for the Government land which was not acquired, was in terms of the provision u/s 32 of the Act. Compensation was not paid to the Government land, but the amount paid was as consideration towards the grant made during November 2008 i.e., after more than 4 years of conclusion of acquisition proceedings relating to petitioners lands and hence, there cannot be any comparison of the valuation. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions and sought dismissal of the writ petitions.
1) State of Gujarat, etc. Vs. Daya Shamji Bhai, etc.,
2) Ishwarlal Premchand Shah and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others,
3) Desigowda Vs. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board - ILR 1995 KAR 2250
4) Rozario D''souza & Others Vs. State of Karnataka & Another - Order Dated 08.11 1996 IN W.P. Nos. 34366-450/1993
5) N.G. Channabasappa & Others Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board & Another - Order Dated 16.03.2001 In W.P. Nos. 25276-226/1999
6) N.G. Channabasappa & Others Vs. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board - Order Dated 29.10.2002 In W.A. Nos. 3638-3648/2001
7) Thomas Patrao since deceased by his LR and Another Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others,
8) Rajiv Sarin and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others,
I have perused the writ petition record. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, is there a need for respondents 1 to 5 to take steps to re-determine the compensation, is the point for consideration.
Petitioners do not dispute the fact of their participation in the Price Advisory Committee meetings with regard to fixation of the compensation amount payable for acquisition of their lands and the compensation amount payable having been agreed to be fixed at 4,00,000/- per acre. Petitioners do not dispute the fact of receiving the agreed amount of compensation, upon execution of the agreements and by furnishing of the indemnity bonds.
Section 29(1) of the Act provides that, where any land is acquired by the Government under Chapter VII of the Act, the Government shall pay for such acquisition, compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 29(2) of the Act provides that, where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. Section 29(3) of the Act provides that, where no such agreement could be reached, the Government shall refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition, as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. Section 29(4) of the Act provides for the procedure required to be followed by the Deputy Commissioner on a reference being made to him u/s 29(3) of the Act. Provisions of Section 30, would come into operation for the purpose of sub-section (2) & (4) of Section 29 of the Act.
Undeniably, the petitioners entered into an agreement with regard to the compensation payable for acquisition of their lands and received the compensation amount during 2005 itself. Three land owners, who did not agree to receive the compensation, having made claims, award as at Annexure-E was passed. They having filed writ petitions, reference in respect of their claims was made to Civil Court. The reference was not adjudicated and the market value was not determined by the Civil Court. The three land owners and respondents 6 & 7, having entered into private arrangement, Memorandum of Understanding, as at Annexures - L to L2 were entered into and the reference cases were dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, Section 28A of the Act has no application to the matters. The payment with regard to Government land, which was not acquired, having been made after 4 years of the acquisition of the petitioners land and payment made to the petitioners, has no application of whatsoever nature with regard to the compensation payable to the petitioners, which was paid in terms of the provision u/s 29(2) of the Act. The above being the undisputed scenario, in my opinion, these petitions are squarely covered by the order dated 08.11.1996 passed in W.P. Nos. 34366-450/1993 connected with W.P. Nos. 162-171/1994, on which, Sri S.S. Naganand, placed reliance. Following the said decision, these writ petitions are liable to be held as devoid of merit.
In the result, the writ petitions being devoid of merit, shall stand dismissed, with no order as to costs.