LAWS(KAR)-2014-4-206

DEEPAK ANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On April 28, 2014
Deepak Anand Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners of converted land bearing Sy. No. 119 Old No. 90 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas situated adjacent to the National Highway No. 7, Kannamangala Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District, having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 1 -12 -2003. The respondents had issued notifications under Sections 3(1) and 1(3) as well as Section 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KIAD Act', for brevity) and the same was sought to be acquired for the Bangalore International Airport. The petitioners claim that they were not notified nor was any notice issued to them of any acquisition. It is by hindsight that the acquisition was challenged by way of writ proceedings before this Court in W.P. No. 11483 of 2008. The petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondent 2 to pass appropriate orders in terms of the order passed in an earlier writ petition in W.P. No. 18550 of 2007 and connected cases, wherein the acquisition was upheld. However, certain directions were issued to the effect that the petitioners be given additional compensation and directing the second respondent to determine the market value as on 29 -10 -2007 and not as on 6 -4 -2004. The petitioners claim that the respondents had issued a notice dated 3 -2 -2010 calling upon them to produce certain documents in support of their claim, pursuant to which they had produced the same as on 31 -1 -2011. Since there was no further communication, the petitioners had made series of representations commencing with a representation dated 25 -7 -2012 and three other representations including one on 30 -8 -2013. It was brought to the attention of the second respondent that the market value prevalent at the area at the relevant point of time was much larger than what was awarded in the earlier proceedings. Despite the same, there was no notice of hearing regarding enquiry in the award proceedings from the respondents. It is only by notice dated 14 -11 -2013 issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the LA Act', for brevity) dated 29 -10 -2013 that the petitioners were informed that an award had been passed and that the same had been approved by the Special Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 8 -7 -2013. The notice indicated that the award was for a sum of Rs. 75,32,281/ - and that the petitioners should be personally present before the authorities within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, failing which the amount would be deposited before the Competent Civil Court. It is pursuant to this that the petitioners learnt of the award having been passed.

(2.) ON 7 -3 -2012, the second respondent had called for details of the transactions that had taken place between the years 2005 -2006, 2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008 in the neighbourhood of lands bearing Sy. No. 90, New No. 119 of Kannamangala Village. The Sub -Registrar is said to have furnished details of such transactions. The petitioners in turn had furnished particulars of transactions in the neighbourhood and it was particularly urged that the second respondent ought not to rely on an earlier award passed by the second respondent dated 9 -1 -2010 wherein a sale transaction of the year 2007 had been taken into consideration. Inspite this, it is the case of the petitioners, that without affording an opportunity of hearing, the award has been passed restricting the compensation to a sum of Rs. 75,32,281/ -.

(3.) WHILE the learned Counsel for the respondents in opposing the petition, has filed statement of objections placing reliance on a decision of the High Court in the case of Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Another : AIR 2013 SC 3452: (2013)14 SCC 50. This was apparently a case where the landowner had claimed compensation at a particular rate. Whereas the Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the compensation at a fraction of the amount claimed by the landowner. That having been challenged before the Reference Court, the Reference Court had enhanced the amount, while finding that the Land Acquisition Officer had not assigned any reason or the basis in arriving at the rate of compensation. The same having been carried to the High Court, the High Court in turn had held that the landowner stood in the position of the plaintiff and it was for him to establish the amount of compensation claimed and therefore, the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation, merely holding that the Land Acquisition Officer had not assigned any basis for awarding the compensation. It was also held that the award is in the nature of an offer and the reference made to the Civil Court is not in the nature of an appeal and hence, it was open for the landowner to establish his case for higher amount of compensation, notwithstanding the rate of compensation awarded.