The Secretary for Housing Government of Karnataka vs Mohiddin Nawaz Khan

N.K. Patil, J.—These appeals are by the appellants/respondents 1 and 3 questioning the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 passed in WP Nos. 1506/2011 and 12512-520/2011 and 12521/2011, wherein the respondent Nos. 1 to 21 have sought for a direction to the appellants herein, to pay the compensation within 30 days from the date of the order of this Court, at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- to 3,000/- per sq. ft. to the extent of 2 acres and 5 guntas of land, since the compensation which was fixed u/s 20 of KSC Act, itself has been struck down by the Hon''ble High Court of Karnataka by its order dated 20.07.2007, in WP No. 22611/2005 C/w. WP No. 20955/2005 and 21192/2005 and to pay the compensation at the Market Value as per Sections 23 and 24 of Land Acquisition Act 1894, awarding statutory benefits, as envisaged u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act etc. The writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 21 was disposed of. Not being satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants herein, felt necessitated to present these appeals.

In brief, the facts of the case in hand are that:

The land bearing Survey No. 1/1 of Bhogenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Road, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 2 acres 5 guntas was declared as a slum (Anandapuram Slum) under the provisions of Section 3 of the Slum Act and after issuance of Notification u/s 17 of Slum Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District determined the compensation at Rs. 500/- per sq. foot and passed an order in this regard on 29.10.2002.

Be it as it may, on a representation by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, the earlier order was modified fixing the compensation at 300 times of the property tax and the amount was determined at Rs. 79,97,700/- for the lands notified. The 22nd respondent-the Chairman, KSCB, requested the appellants to sanction the grant for payment of compensation. The appellants directed the board to arrange for payments out of its own funds. The Board decided to request the Government to cancel the acquisition notification in its meeting held on 20.10.2004 due to shortage of funds and accordingly, a proposal was sent to the Government. During that time the GPA holder of land owners one Dr. Sayed Illyas filed a WP No. 1506/2011 seeking a direction from this Court to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 3,000/- per sq. feet in respect of the lands acquired for the benefit of Slum dwellers with solatium and other benefits and further seeking to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 11.03.2003 shown as Annexure ''U'' and for other incidental reliefs.

It is the case of the appellants that, earlier, a large extent of land situated at Bogenahalli Village bearing Sy. No. 1/1 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas had been acquired by Regulated Market Committee (RMC) during 1965 and it was found that an award had been passed for a sum of Rs. 67,275/- and the Land Acquisition Officer had referred the matter under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act depositing the amount before the competent Civil Court in LAC No. 14/1969. The subject property namely "Anandapuram Slum" measuring an extent of 2 acres 5 guntas was of the earlier acquisition initiated by the RMC within the knowledge of Slum Authority and the proceedings under the slum Act was subsequent to the earlier acquisition by the RMC authority. The land owners having knowledge of the earlier proceedings and who actively participated suppressed the truth in order to claim higher compensation, which cannot be justified and sustained. This fact has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, but the same was not properly considered and the modified order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was also held to be invalid.

The learned Single Judge of this Court confirmed the 1st award passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-S fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. feet for the lands acquired in respect of an extent of 2 acres and 5 guntas, reserving liberty to Respondent/Petitioners or anybody to challenge the same, if they are not satisfied with the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

It is the further case of the appellants that, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the several grounds raised like limitation, ascertainment of ownership of the lands acquired, authority of the GPA holder on account of the objections raised by several co-owners, locus standi etc. All these aspects were neither looked into nor appreciated by the learned Single Judge and therefore, such orders cannot be sustained in law.

The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants at the outset submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to law and facts of the case and is liable to be vitiated. Further, he pointed out and submitted that, in fact, it is specifically contended before the learned Single Judge that, the land in question was notified by APMC Yard (RMC) as early as 1965 and the question of once again notifying the said land by issuing another notification without verifying the relevant material available on record, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the award. This aspect is neither looked into nor considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 21 as devoid of merits is liable to be set aside.

After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants, perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge and other material available on record including the grounds urged by the appellants, it emerges that, the learned Single Judge after critical evaluation of the entire records available on file and considering the stand taken by the respondents'' counsel and other relevant material and also the objections, by placing reliance on the judgment passed by this Court and also the order passed by the competent authority of the National Highway has framed necessary point for consideration and after due evaluation of the entire material on record is justified in disposing of the writ petitions by making observation at Para Nos. 33 to 36 of the said order. The said observation is just and proper and we do not find any error or material irregularity, as such, committed by the learned Single Judge, nor we find any good ground as such made out by the appellants to interfere in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we decline to entertain the intra Court proceedings by exercising the jurisdiction. Hence, we decline to consider the prayer sought in this appeal.

Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed as devoid of merits.

In view of dismissal of main appeals on merit, the relief sought in IA No. 4/2012 does not survive for consideration and hence, the said IA is disposed of as having become infructuous.