G GANGADHARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to respondent-2 to pay the balance of compensation of amount payable to them in respect of the lands acquired from them under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act of 1966 (Karnataka Act No. 18 of 1966) (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act ').

(2.) Among others, the petitioners claim to be the owners of Sy. Nos. 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 measuring an extent of 54 acres 31 guntas of land situated in Boodhal village of Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore District. A public limited company called Serle (India) Ltd. moved the Government for acquisition of the aforesaid lands under the Act. Accordingly, the Government in notification No. CI 2 FDB 76 dated 1st July 1976 (Ext. 'A') issued a preliminary notification proposing to acquire the said lands for development by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) constituted and functioning under the Act. As the petitioners did not oppose the acquisition of the said lands, the Government issued a final notification on 4th October 1976 under the Act, (Ext. B) declaring their acquisition for the aforesaid purpose. So far as the compensation payable for the aforesaid lands, the petitioners and the State Government entered into an agreement on 6-8-1977 (Ext. E) under s. 29(2) of the Act. Under the said agreement, the petitioners agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 as full and final compensation payable by the Government for the said lands, which was agreed to by the State Government. The agreement entered into on 6-8-1977 is in conformity with Art. 299 of the Constitution, and is therefore a valid and an enforceable agreement against Government. In pursuance of the said agreement, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs. 3,14,854 to the petitioners and have withheld the balance of Rs. 35,145-44 P. On more than one occasion the petitioners approached respondent No. 2 who is the authorised officer to make payment, but the said authority did not accede to their demands. With no alternative left, the petitioners have moved this Court on 19-9- 1977 under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief.

(3.) On 26-9-1977 this Court ordered emergent notices to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi should not be issued. On 23-11-1977, Jagannatha Shetty, J. directed the petitioners to approach respondent-2 with their title deeds of Sy. Nos. 30 and 31 apparently for the reason the said authority had some doubt about their title to the said two lands. In pursuance of the said order of Jagannatha Shetty, J, the petitioners again appeared before respondent-2 and produced their title deeds and sought for payment of the balance of compensation. On 11-7-1978 respondent No. 2 passed an order holding that the petitioners were entitled for payment of the compensation in respect of " put kharab area", amounting to Rs. 2,600 and the balance should be withheld. On the basis of that order, respondent-2, on 18-11-1978 has made a reference to the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore District, purporting to be under s. 30 of the Karnatuka Land Acquisition Act, which is made applicable for acquisition of lands under the Act. In that reference respondent No. 2 does not state that any other person has raised a dispute as to the title of the aforesaid lands. But as can be gathered from his order and the submission made by Sri C. Shivappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, it appears, respondent No. 2 has withheld the payment of the balance of the amount on the ground that the extent of land notified for acquisition does not tally with the sale deeds. Sri Shivappa, also submitted that the reference made by respondent No. 2 to the Additional Civil Judge numbered as LAC. 340 of 1978 is pending adjudication before that Court and the same stands posted to 22-8-1979 for evidence.