FAKRULLA KHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitions by a person who claims to be an agreement holder with the owner of lands in Sy. No. 40, measuring 32 acres situated at Bandikodigenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengalooru North Taluk which were subject-matter of acquisition proceedings by the State Government under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KIADB Act').

(2.) It is the version of the Petitioner that even when the Petitioner had acquired some interest in the subject lands and notwithstanding bringing this development to the notice of the 4th Respondent, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB; that the Petitioner has an agreement with the owner of the land for sale of subject lands to him and that the agreement had been preceded by the payment of a substantial amount to the owner, nevertheless the Land Acquisition Officer has at the time of disbursement of compensation to persons having interest in the land has acted in a collusive manner with the owner of the land; that the 4th Respondent has deliberately, with a view to favour the owner of the land and to the detriment of the Petitioner, has made payment of the entire amount of compensation in favour of the owner, ignoring the Petitioner's rights and his claim based in the agreement; that on a complaint against the 4th Respondent, the 3rd Respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner attached to the Board had conducted an enquiry and had found that the complaint and allegations of the Petitioner, levelled against the 4th Respondent are true in terms of his order dated 1-1-2010, copy produced at Annexure-S to the petition and has also found that the 4th Respondent has acted contrary to the statutory provisions, amounting to a dereliction of duty on his part in not depositing the compensation amount before the Civil Court and instead of directing the parties to get their dispute resolved before the Civil Court but by making payment of compensation to the owner of the land in a manner preemptive of the rights of the Petitioner; that the Petitioner in the circumstances, having no other alternative remedy in law has approached this Court seeking for the following prayer:

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Sri Prasanna Kumar, learned Counsel submits that when a higher official of the Board viz., the Special Deputy Commissioner, has on a enquiry found truth in the allegations made and also has held the 4th Respondent guilty of infraction of statutory provisions and when once it is found that the landowner was not entitled to receive the amount, it was incumbent on the Respondents 3 and 4 to have directed the owner to redeposit the amount so that the amount can be in turn deposited before the Civil Court and the parties directed to get their dispute resolved before the Civil Court. Not issuing such direction to the landowner, who had received entire compensation, is dereliction of duty on the part of Respondents 3 and 4 and therefore, Petitioner is entitled to seek necessary relief from this Court, at least to take action for ensuring the compensation amount got deposited before the Civil Court, by resorting to such action as is warranted in law against the owner.