THIMMAKKA, W/O. CHENNAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 AND OTHERS,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Memos were filed in the said cases on 27.10.2010 and the reference applications were dismissed as withdrawn.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'.

(3.) SRI Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 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 under Section 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 and 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 and 208 of 2006 and the respondents 6 and 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 and 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 and 7. He further submitted that the said grant by the Government in favour of respondents 6 and 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.