Disposed

M/S Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2014WP/10322/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging land acquisition, the Court noted no award had been passed despite pending proceedings post-2013 Act. The Court clarified that Section 24 mandates 2013 Act compliance for compensation determination if no prior award exists and disposed of the petition directing the petitioner to claim compensation accordingly under the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with an observation that the petitioner is entitled to compensation to be determined under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

M/S Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.10322 OF 2013 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/s. Deco Equipments Private Limited, C-38, Hebbal Industrial Area, Metagalli, Mysore – 16, Represented by its Managing Director, Deric Fernandes.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri. Raghavendra Kattimani .M, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore – 570 001.

¶14

¶15

M/s. Bhabha Atomic Research

¶16

Centre,

¶17

Rare Material Project, Ministry of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Mysore – 570 001, Represented by its Managing Director.

¶18

The Land Acquisition Officer/ Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Taluk – 571 105. Mysore District.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Shri. H. Anantha, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4

¶21

Shri. Omkaresha, Advocate for Respondent No.3)

¶22

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash preliminary notification under Section 4[1] dated 15.3.2008 as per Annexure-F passed by second respondent and set aside the impugned gazette notification under 6[1] of the Act at Annexure-A dated 02.11.2012 and etc;

¶24

This Writ Petition is coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶27

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶28

¶29

The case of the petitioners is as follows:

¶30

The petitioner claims to be a small-scale industry

¶31

manufacturing automobile spares and located at the Unit in the property in question bearing Sy.No.58 of Chikkadanahally Village, Hunsur Taluk measuring 4 acres, which was sought to

¶32

be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’, for brevity) vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the LA Act dated 15.03.2008 for the purpose of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mysore.

¶33

The petitioner had filed his objections to the acquisition claiming that the land and the Unit situated thereon are the only source of income for his livelihood. The same was negated and a final declaration under Section 6(1) and Section 17 of the LA Act invoking the emergency clause were issued. The petitioner had challenged the same by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.405/2010. This Court, by its order dated 14.02.2012, held that the very fact that final notification was

¶34

¶35

issued after much length of time would itself indicate that there was no emergent situation and therefore, since the petitioner had not been provided an opportunity of defending himself at an enquiry under Section 5-A of the LA Act, this Court was of the opinion that the petitioner ought to be given an opportunity of hearing and hence, quashed the proceedings upto the stage of enquiry under Section 5-A and directed that the proceedings be taken up from that stage. Pursuant to the order, an enquiry has been conducted and thereafter further proceedings if any, are not highlighted in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State Government.

¶36

Insofar as Respondent No.3 is concerned, it is pointed out that pursuant to the proceedings initiated earlier and since the same proceeded to a stage where award had been passed dated 5.6.2009, the Respondent No.3 being a beneficiary of the acquisition, had thought it fit to deposit an amount of Rs.85,96,667/- and therefore, it is absolved of any liability to pay any further compensation and any further proceedings are

¶37

¶38

clearly between the State Government and the petitioner and also seeks that since the subsequent development is not the making of the third respondent, the third respondent should be absolved of paying any further compensation if it is so found fit.

¶39

It is in this background that the petitioner is before this Court contending by way of amendment to the petition that in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’, for brevity) is concerned, would indicate in terms of Section 24 that if no award is passed under Section 11 of the LA Act, then all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation, rehabilitation and re-settlement shall apply and hence, would submit that since the petitioner would assert that there has been no award passed subsequent to the remand by this Court and the proceedings are yet to take shape, the determination of compensation payable to the petitioner shall

¶40

¶41

be in accordance with the 2013 Act and would hence submit that the petition may be disposed of with the observation that the petitioner is entitled to compensation to be determined under the 2013 Act.

¶42

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand

¶43

would submit that the objections of the petitioner were only with reference to the challenge to the acquisition on the ground that there was no fair enquiry even after remand and the declaration under Section 6(1) was therefore invalid. The statement of objections is restricted to holding that there was complete enquiry and the objections of the petitioner had been considered. There are no instructions insofar as the award having been passed as on date and seeks time to secure the records.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner would assert that

¶45

there are no further developments and no award has been passed. The petitioner has not been issued any notice of such award in the light of which, if an award has been passed prior to

¶46

¶47

the 2013 Act coming into force, namely on 1.1.2014, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation according to the said award. However, if an award has not been passed as on date, it would be necessary for determination of compensation under the 2013 Act as is made plain under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. In the absence of any assistance from the Government Pleader in this regard, this Court has no choice, but to issue such an order. Consequently, the petition stands disposed of in terms as above.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

M/S Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Deco Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalpatharu Vidhya Samsthe (Regd) Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Stanly Nelson P Vs Mr a Anthony Dass

Ms Shibani v Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Rama Rao Nimbalkar v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri a M Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Bel Educational Institutions Management Committee Vs the Director (Secondary Education)