SHABANA BEGUM AND ORS. Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GULBARGA AND THE E.M. KIADB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE intra Court appeals are preferred by the petitioners in W.P. No. 81199/2011 and connected petitions calling in question the common order dated 19.10.2011 dismissing the petitions. There is no dispute that the appellants are owners of the lands acquired by the State invoking Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short the 'KIAD Act'). It is the assertion of the appellants that in a meeting of the Advisory Committee consisting of the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, several other officials and the appellants held on 31.03.2009 to determine the compensation payable in respect of the lands in question, a Resolution has passed indicating that the appellants were agreeable to receive Rs. 22 lakhs per acre towards compensation though the Deputy Commissioner offered Rs. 21.50 lakhs per acre. The KIADB, in its 296th meeting held on 16.02.2011, in subject No. 18, held that it was not agreeable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.50 lakhs per acre as recommended by the Advisory Committee, but was willing to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 lakhs per acre, which, the Land Lords if not agreeable, the acquisition proceeding be dropped. There is further no dispute that the appellants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer entered into agreements Annexures -'C1' to 'C57' whereunder the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the KIADB a delegate of the State under Rule 14 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Rules, 1966 (for short the 'Rules') agreed to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 lakhs per acre, while the appellants agreed to receive the same. Following the agreements signed by both the parties, as also their attesting witnesses, appellants admittedly received payments as compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, while executing indemnity bond, receipts for having received the said payment, identified by their learned counsel and handed over possession of the said lands. There afterwards on 02.02.2010, appellants filed petitions under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to refer the claim for enhancement of market value of the lands to the Civil Court which when rejected on 22.03.2010, presented the writ petitions.

(2.) IN the writ petitions it was alleged that they were coerced into signing the agreements and that the respondent - KIADB adopted a wrong method of arriving at valuation of the land at Rs. 15 lakhs per acre, while violating the principles of natural justice, since the appellants were not aware of the contents of the document on which they affixed their signatures. Hence sought for a direction to the respondent to pay the remaining amount of compensation of Rs. 6.50 lakhs per acre.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge did not find merit in the contention of the appellants that the recommendation dated 31.03.2009 of the Advisory Committee is an agreement between the parties determining compensation, on the premise that the recommendation (resolution) of the Advisory Committee in which the Deputy Commissioner Gulbarga agreed to pay compensation at Rs. 21.50 lakhs per acre which the appellants agreed to receive was not signed by the appellants, being a recommendation was not accepted by the KIADB. The learned Single Judge further observed that the Board in its 296th meeting held on 16.02.2011 in Subject No. 18 did not agree to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.50 lakhs per acre, decided to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 lakhs per acre, where afterwards the appellants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer a delegate of the State under Rule 14 of the Rules entered into agreements Annexures -'C1' to 'C57'. It is on this premise that the learned Single Judge observed that the recommendation dated 31.03.2009 does not partake the character of an agreement as envisaged under sub -section (2) of Section 29 of the KIAD Act. In addition, learned Single Judge observed that the appellants accepted the compensation at the rate of Rs. 15 lakhs per acre without demur and hence were disentitled to claim additional sum of Rs. 6.50 lakhs towards compensation.