SUJATHA SIRAGUMBI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of this writ petition is site bearing No. 169 in Sy. Nos. 142/1, 156, 158 and 155 of Jigani Village, Anekal Taluk, measuring 30 ft. 40 ft. The petitioner contends that she had purchased the said site under a deed of conveyance at Annexure 'A' dated 12.2.1985 from M/s. Man-Jog Builders. The said site along with certain adjacent lands were acquired by the State Government. The preliminary notification for acquisition of the said land was issued on 28.2.2002. This was followed by a declaration dated 3.9.2003 vesting the land in the State Government for the establishment of an industrial area by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short 'the Board'). The petitioner was not the notified kathedar. She was represented by her General Power of Attorney Holder in these proceedings. She made an application dated 15.12.2006 for payment of compensation in respect of the said site on the basis of the conveyance deed at Annexure 'A'. The parties have entered into an agreement as per Annexure 'R1' dated 25.4.2007 and compensation has been paid in terms of the said agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'). She made an application as per Annexure 'B' dated 2.5.2007 seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court. The said application was rejected by the first respondent as per the endorsement at Annexure 'F' dated 4.3.2010. Therefore, she has filed this writ petition for quashing the proceedings dated 12.7.2002 vide Annexure 'J' insofar as the site in question is concerned and for a direction to the second respondent to fix the market value of the site at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per sq. ft. The first respondent has filed statement of objections opposing the writ petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard in the proceedings at Annexure 'J' whereby the market value of the property was determined. It is argued that she is entitled for award of higher compensation. She has received the compensation as per the agreement at Annexure 'R2' dated 25.4.2007 under protest. Therefore, her application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short 'the LA Act') seeking reference was maintainable. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Dhingra Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 AIR(SC) 974 and submits that when the petitioner has accepted the award amount under protest, she does not loose the right to seek reference under Section 18 of the LA Act.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the application dated 15.12.2006, the petitioner has sought for award of compensation without submitting any documents. Considering the fact that she had purchased the site under the deed of conveyance at Annexure A', the compensation was determined by the Price Advisory Committee as per Annexure 'J' dated 12.7.2002. The petitioner represented by her General Power of Attorney Holder and the respondents have entered into an agreement as per Annexure 'R1' dated 25.4.2007 under Section 29(2) of the Act whereby she has agreed to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,73,500/- per acre. In the agreement, though the petitioner has stated that she is receiving the compensation under protest, the intention gathered from the recitals of the agreement and her subsequent conduct suggests that she has agreed to receive the compensation in full and final settlement of her claim. In the agreement, it is agreed that she is not entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation either for the land or for the structures standing thereon or for the benefit arising from the property. She has also executed indemnity bond on the same day agreeing not to approach the Civil Court seeking additional compensation and that, if it is found that she is not the owner of the property, she will refund the entire compensation amount. She has received the compensation without any protest. Her application seeking reference at Annexure 'B' has been rejected by the first respondent as per the endorsement at Annexure 'F' dated 4.3.2010. She has not challenged the validity of the said endorsement. Therefore, she is not entitled to challenge the proceedings of Price Advisory Committee at Annexure 'J'.