DESIGOWDA Vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in all these petitions were owners of lands in Hootagalli village. The lands of the petitioners were acquired for development of an industrial area by the respondent Board (Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board) under preliminary notification dated 10-7-1980 and final notification dated 2-11-1981 issued under Ss.28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 ('Act' for short). In all these cases, the petitioners entered into agreements with the State Government agreeing to receive compensation ranging from Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 18,750/- per acre, under S.29(2) of the said Act. The petitioners also executed Indemnity Bonds in favour of the Government and the respondent Board, indemnifying them against any claim that may be made by any third parties, as a consequence of the State Government and the respondent Board acting on the representations of the petitioners that they were the owners of the lands and consequently paying the compensation amount to them. On the basis of such agreements, Bills were prepared for the compensation amount and the interest thereon; and the same had been paid to the petitioners in or about the year 1985 in full settlement. No awards were passed in regard to the acquisition of lands of petitioners, under S.29(3) of the said Act, as the compensation had been determined by agreement under S.29(2).

(2.) Some other owners of lands acquired under the same notifications, did not however enter into agreements under S.29(2). In those cases, the State Government referred the matters to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the compensation, under S.29(3). The Deputy Commissioner passed awards; and not being satisfied with such awards, those owners sought reference to the Civil Court. The Civil Court by judgment and award dated 25-08-1993 passed in LAC No.389 and 390/ 1987, determined the market value in regard to such lands at Rs.28,500/- per acre. The petitioners, who had already received compensation by agreement under S.29(2) of the said Act, at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- to Rs. 18,750/-per acre, made claims for increase in the compensation, under S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('LA Act' for short) on the ground that their lands were also situated in the same area and covered by the same Notifications and therefore they are also entitled to increased compensation at the rate of Rs. 28,500/- per acre, as in the case of the petitioners in LAC Nos. 389 and 390/ 1987. The said applications have been rejected by the Respondent Board by Endorsements dated 12-1-1994 (Annexures-C1 to C10 in W.P. 10279-86/ 1994, Annexures-C1 to CI7 in W.P. Nos. 10190-203/ 1994, C1 to C13 in W.P. 11431 to 11441/1994 and C1 to C4 in W.P. Nos. 18162 to 264/ 1994), on the ground that S.28A of the L.A. Act is in applicable to cases where the owners had been paid compensation under S.29(2) of the KIAD Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these petitions for quashing the said endorsements rejecting their claims. Petitioners have also sought a declaration that S.28A of the L.A. Act is applicable, even where the compensation for the acquired land is determined by agreement and for a direction to the respondent to pay increased compensation to the petitioners, at the rate fixed by the Civil Court in LAC. 389 and 390/1987.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that S.28A of the L.A. Act is applicable in regard to all compulsory acquisitions whether under the L.A. Act or under other Acts. He also contended that irrespective of whether compensation is determined by agreement or by an enquiry and award, S.28A of L.A. Act is applicable.