Court addressed writ petition concerning premature release of land acquisition compensation to an individual claimant while land tribunal proceedings remained pending. The High Court directed recovery procedures and kept petitioners' claims open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.45397 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. B. Sanjeeva Rai, Son of Mallappa Rai, Since dead by his legal representatives
All are residing at Padumale, Paduvannur Village,
2
Puttur Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada pin code- 574 313.
Represented by their G.P.A. Holder:-
Sri. M. Vinod Alva, Son of Late M. Ananda Alva, Aged about 51 years, Residing at Padumale, Paduvannur Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada Pin Code-574 31.
…PETITIONERS
(By Shri. Y. Rajendra Prasad Shetty, Advocate )
AND:
3
All are residing at “Anugraha”, 1st Cross, Kolya, Someshwara Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada pin code-575023.
…RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Shobith N Shetty, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Shri. Sudhakar Pai, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2(a and c) Respondent nos. 2(b, c, d and e) are served and unrepresented)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct to the second respondent(a) to (e) to re-deposit the compensation amount of Rs.15,73,808/- received by late Lakshman Salian with the first respondent and etc;
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:
4
O R D E R
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Counsel for the respondents.
It is stated that one B.Sanjeev Rai was the absolute owner
of property bearing Survey No.60/4, measuring 9 acres 6 cents of Someshwara village, Mangalore Taluk. It transpires that after the death of Sanjeeva Rai, the petitioners became the joint owners of the said property along with other properties belonging to late Sanjeeva Rai. One Somaiah Poojari had filed Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of land in Survey No.60/4, to the extent of 1 acre 8 cents situated at Someshwara Village, Mangalore Taluk, along with other properties. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the said Somaiah Poojari is said to have died. Thereafter the Tribunal had granted the occupancy rights in favour of his wife Akkamma only to the extent of 1 acre 36 cents on 30.4.2005 and rejected the claim in respect of the
5
remaining area. Akkamma had challenged the order of the Land Tribunal before this court in WP 3695/2006 where as the petitioners had also challenged the same insofar as the grant of occupancy rights, as already stated in favour of Akkamma. This court had clubbed the petitions filed by Akkamma as well as the petitioners and by its order dated 24.6.2008 remitted the matter for reconsideration. On remand, the Tribunal had issued notice to the petitioners and Akkamma. However, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, land bearing Survey No.60/4 measuring 388 Square Metres or 0.09.60 acres of Someshwara Village was acquired by the first respondent for the purpose of widening of National Highway. Akkamma and her children, namely, Rajeeva Poojari, Narayana Poojari, Susheela and Sathyavathi, represented by a general power of attorney holder, had executed a release deed dated 4.4.2007 in favour of one Lakshmana Saliana and are said to have created documents for the purpose of obtaining compensation pursuant to the acquisition proceedings by the first respondent.
6
Lakshmana Saliana, it is stated, has furnished a No Objection Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Mangalore dated 5.4.2012, to the effect that the case was pending before the Land Tribunal, in respect of the acquired property. One Vinod Alva is said to have filed objections before the first respondent bringing it to the attention of the first respondent that in respect of the land bearing Survey No.60/4 measuring 2 acre 76 cents the matter was pending before the Land Tribunal, Mangalore for consideration, as per the order passed in the writ proceedings before this court. It is the case of the petitioners that the first respondent therefore kept informed of the pending proceedings and notwithstanding the same, has released an amount of Rs.17,46,024/- in favour of Lakshmana Saliana and it is that which is sought to be questioned in the present proceedings.
It is the petitioner’s case that Lakshmana Saliana, who had withdrawn the entire amount of compensation is no more and is now represented by his legal representatives, who are in
7
turn represented by Counsel, who has filed statement of objections admitting that there was release of compensation in favour of Lakshmana Saliana.
Saliana has withdrawn the amount, which is endorsed by the widow and the married daughter of Saliana, who have filed their written statements to that effect. In the above circumstances, it is evident that unless the matter before the Civil Judge had attained finality, the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land being released in favour of any one party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal was forestalling the proceedings and premature release of the amount, as if the claimant was entitled to the entire amount. It is also on record that the said amount was released on the basis of a No Objection Certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Tahsildar to the effect that there is no pending writ petition or writ appeal and based on an indemnity bond. Therefore, in the above circumstances, it would be for the National Highway
8
authorities to enforce the indemnity bond in the light of the admitted circumstance that there is a pending proceeding before the Land Tribunal and till the matter attains finality, it is not certain as to when the amount of compensation would be released in favour of the claimant and it would now be for the National Highway authorities to recover the amount if the person who has withdrawn the amount is not readily available. In the meanwhile, the petitioners cannot be shut out of the claim for compensation. The entitlement of the petitioners to the compensation is kept open pending further proceedings to be initiated by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), to recover the amount and to adjudicate on the claims of the petitioners and such other parties who may be entitled to the same.
NHAI belatedly seeks to file statement of objections across the bar which is not welcomed and this practice shall be avoided. However, since the petition is being disposed of, the statement of objections is taken on record.
9
With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether release of compensation to a party when land tribunal proceedings are pending is prima facie an unlawful interference with pending proceedings.
Whether compensation amounts must be held in escrow until the land tribunal adjudicates competing claims.
Whether National Highway Authority can validly issue No Objection Certificates for compensation despite pending tribunal litigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Thilothama S Rai
Smt. Radhika B Rai
Sri. Krishnaprasad B Rai
Smt. Krishnaveni B Rai
M. Vinod Alva
National Highway Authority of India
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
