MUNIYAMMA, ANJANAMRNA AND NARAYANAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners contend that they were absolute owners of portions of land bearing Survey No. 44. In that, petitioner No. 1 had purchased 39 guntas of land in Survey No. 44 under a registered sale deed dated 7.8.1976 and one Yellappa and Lachhanna had jointly purchased 2 acres of land in Survey No. 44 under a registered deed dated 23.8.1966. Lachhanna had sold 1 acre to Yellappa under a registered sale deed dated 6.2.1988. Therefore, Yellappa became the absolute owner of 2 acres of land. Yellappa died and his sons Muniraju and Narayanappa were entitled to 1 acre each. Muniraju having died, his legal representatives have succeeded to 1 acre of land. It is further stated that Narasimhaiah, a subsequent party to the writ petition had purchased 39 guntas of land in the said survey number under a registered sale deed 15.3.1969. The second petitioner, who is the daughter of the first petitioner, acquired an extent of 39 guntas under a registered gift deed dated 18.12.1999 executed by her father and thus, the total extent of land measuring 4 acres 37 guntas would be distributed as follows: - - The respondents had initiated acquisition proceedings to acquire the land around Arishinakunte village for the purpose of International Airport as per notification dated 7.7.1994 and in further proceedings, possession had also been taken as early as in the year 2001, but an award notice was served on the petitioners only on 27.11.2011 determining the compensation payable at Rs. 22,27,627/ -. The petitioners claim that one Muninarayanappa had applied to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Devanahalli for apportionment of the compensation in case in LAC No. 36/2006 and significantly, the petitioners were not parties to the said proceedings. The petitioners have woken up to their rights later and had got themselves impleaded. It is the case of the petitioners that in the acquisition proceedings though the extent of the land as aforesaid was correctly indicated as 4 acres 38 guntas in the preliminary notification, however, in the final notification, the land was reduced to 4 acres 15 guntas and compensation was granted only in respect of 4 acres 15 guntas and there was no explanation for having deleted 23 guntas of land. The petitioners had filed an application for a direction to re -determine the compensation for the entire extent of 4 acres 38 guntas. However, it is the case of the petitioners that the Civil Judge had observed during the course of the hearing that the proceedings being executory in nature, the question of directing the first respondent would not arise and the petitioners ought to avail the remedy elsewhere. Thereafter the petitioners got issued a notice to the respondent to determine the compensation for the entire extent of 4 acre 38 guntas, as against the extent of 4 acres and 15 guntas. Notwithstanding the same, as there is failure of determination of the compensation in respect of 23 guntas, which is legitimately due to them, the petitioners are before this court.

(2.) THE respondents have filed statement of objections to contend that the land acquired in terms of the final notification is only 4 acres and 15 guntas and compensation having been determined accordingly, there is no case made out by the petitioner for any additional compensation. In any event, the petitioners having failed to produce the title deeds in respect of the extent of lands held by them, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that there has been a shortfall in the determination of the compensation. The entire extent that is acquired is not disputed by the respondents. In this light of the matter, as undisputedly the preliminary notification was in respect of 4 acres and 38 guntas and the final declaration was only in respect of 4 acres and 15 guntas and 23 guntas having been unaccounted and the petitioners being denied the compensation only on the ground that they were not in a position to substantiate their title to that extent, would certainly suffer injustice merely on the ground that they were not in a position to satisfy the competent authority. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with liberty to the petitioners to furnish the title deeds in respect of the entire extent that was the subject matter of the acquisition proceedings in the first instance and particularly in respect of 23 guntas, which the respondent has not accounted for, which may be the subject matter of the title deeds. The petitioners would be entitled to compensation in respect of the same as well. Therefore, the authority would do well to address the circumstances and to verify as to the manner in which 23 guntas of land, which had also been acquired, has not been compensated and thereafter to pass appropriate orders. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.