AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri
The petitioners'' grievance is that despite the compulsory acquisition of the lands in question for the benefit of the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 2 is showing inaction in the matter of passing the award in accordance with the compensation package of the first respondent.
Sri M. Shivaprakash, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners on coming to know of the compulsory acquisition of the lands did not object to the acquisition with the understanding that the petitioners would be paid the compensation in terms of the first respondent''s scheme containing the compensation package. He submits that the respondent No. 1 has already constructed a ramp on the tend in question.
Sri Harish, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioners are not justified in relying on the internal correspondence with the respondent Nos.1 and 3. He further submits that the construction of the ramp may be to achieve traffic integration jointly by the respondent Nos.1 and 3. He submits that subsequently the respondent No. 1 has formed the considered view that the lands in question are not required for the purpose of the respondent No. 1. It is therefore his emphatic submission that the respondent No. 1 cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioners. He submits that the respondent No. 1 has already written to the respondent No. 2 to drop the acquisition proceedings in respect of the lands in question.
Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the question of passing the award in terms of the first respondent''s compensation package does not arise, as the same are being made over to the respondent No. 3. He submits that the award would be passed in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (''KIAD Act'' for short).
He brings to my notice that the similar writ petition in respect of the same land is already dismissed by this Court, by its order, dated 10.12.2010 passed in W.P. No. 39238/2010.
Sri R.V. Jayaprakash, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the award is to be passed determining the market value as on the date of the issuance of the preliminary notification in accordance with the provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
It is beneficial to refer to this Court''s decision in the case of J.M. Sohanlal and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, , wherein it is held that this Court can, in exercise of its jurisdiction, enforce an obligation, statutorily cast upon the Deputy Commissioner, u/s 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Having compulsorily acquired the properties, the respondent No. 2 is obliged to pass the award within a reasonable time. Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 may not have the application for the acquisition proceedings under the KIAD Act, but that does not mean that the respondent No. 2 should not pass the award within a reasonable time. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the determination of the compensation amounts by the respondent No. 2 in the award which has to be eventually passed, it is always open to the petitioners to avail of the remedy of seeking the reference invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhancement of the compensation amount. If the petitioners have any objection to the acquisition of the land for the benefit of the respondent No. 3, they may raise the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. Further, if the land is not required either for the purpose of railways or for the purpose of the road transportation, it is also open to the petitioners to seek the reconveyance of the lands in question. Such a request, if made, has to be considered in accordance with law.
These petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to pass the award as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of three months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today''s order. Needless to observe that the award has to be in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.