Allowed

Sri.R.Bhoopala Reddy v. the Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2014WP/4930/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged low land acquisition compensation. The court held that owners could invoke Section 28-A despite pending Section 18 references if another identical land had superior award. The Land Acquisition Officer was directed to re-determine compensation within three months based on a Civil Court judgment, dismissing the Section 18 application.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were allowed. Petitioners directed to withdraw Section 18 application. Land Acquisition Officer directed to re-determine compensation within three months.

Sri.R.Bhoopala Reddy Vs the Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 4930-4935 OF 2014 (LA-BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 Sri. R. Bhoopala Reddy, Son of Late Abbaiah Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Residing at No.118/119, COLOSSEO ventures,

¶9

Behind IOC Petrol Pump, Marathahalli,

¶10

Bangalore – 560 037.

¶11

Sri. R. Ravi Kumar, Son of Late Dodda Abbayya Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Residing at No.736/44, 1^st Cross, Chowdeshwari Layout,

¶12

Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037.

¶13

Sri. Chandra Reddy, Son of Late Abbaiah Reddy, Aged about 72 years,

¶14

Sri. Narayana Reddy,

¶15

¶16

Son of Late Abbaiah Reddy, Aged about 70 years,

¶17

Both 3 and 4 are residing at No.92/7, First Cross, Marathahalli, Indiramma Bldg., Bangalore – 560 307.

¶18

Sri Hema Reddy, Son of Late N. Papaiah, Aged about 37 years, Residing at No.714, Behind HP Petrol Bunk, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 037.

¶19

Sri. M N Srinivas Reddy, Son of Late N. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Residing at Chowdeshwari Layout, Marathahalli, Bangalore – 560 37.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(By Shri. M. Erappa Reddy , Advocate)

¶22

AND:

¶23

The Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Sankey Road, Bangalore – 560 020.

¶24

The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority,

Sankey Road,

Bangalore – 560 020.

State of Karnataka by its Secretary

¶29

Housing and Urban Development Department, M.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶30

[cause title amended as per

¶31

The court order dated 8.4.2014]

¶32

… RESPONDENTS

¶33

(By Shri. B.S. Sachin, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Shri. H. Anantha, Government Pleader for Respondent No.3)

¶34

¶35

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner vide AnnexureM,M1,N,N1,P,P1, Q,Q1, R,R1 and S,S1 dated 15.10.2013 and to pass an award by re-determining in the compensation in par with the judgment passed in LAC No.11/2013 dated 29.8.2013 (vide Annexure-L) in respect of the petitioner’s land and direct the respondents to pay the compensation or refer the matter to civil court by depositing the award amount for payment of compensation to the petitioners.

¶36

These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶37

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

These petitions coming on for orders, the learned

¶40

Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the third respondent.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

The first and second petitioners are said to be owners

¶43

of land bearing Sy.No.88 totally measuring 6 acres 19 guntas of Munekkolala Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and they claim that the lands belong to them and that the revenue records stood in their names. An extent of 1 acre 20 guntas out of the total extent was notified for acquisition by the respondents under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authorities Act, 1976, for the formation of 150 feet Outer Ring Road vide preliminary notification dated 6.4.1992 followed by a final declaration dated 15.11.1995 and

¶44

an award came to be passed thereon fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.3,30,000/- per acre.

¶45

¶46

The petitioners 3 and 4 are not related in any manner to Petitioners 1 and 2. The petitioners 3 and 4 who are brothers, are joint owners of land bearing Sy.No.92/5 totally measuring 2 acres 16 guntas of Munekkolala Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The said petitioners claim to have inherited the property and that the revenue records stand in their name. Out of the said extent, 20 guntas of land was said to have been notified, similarly as in the case of the land of the petitioners 1 and 2, for the formation of an Outer Ring Road. The third petitioner’s land bearing Sy.No.171 measuring 10 guntas out of 23 guntas and the fourth petitioner’s property bearing Sy.No.90/1A measuring 10 guntas out of 1 acre 10 guntas were notified for acquisition as aforesaid.

¶47

The fifth petitioner claims to be the owner of Sy.No.89/2 totally measuring 33.5 guntas of the same village and the said petitioner also claims to have inherited the property from his father Papaiah Reddy and that the revenue records stand in his name and that it was similarly acquired for the said purpose.

¶48

¶49

The sixth petitioner claiming to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.93/4 totally measuring 1 acre 10 guntas of which 26 guntas has been notified and acquired as aforesaid, are all before this Court in similar circumstances.

¶50

The award for a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- per acre of the compensation paid therein was received by the petitioners under protest and it transpires that an application was filed seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation, but the same was not referred to the Civil Court.

¶51

The petitioners claim that the land bearing Sy.No.93/6 belonging to Muni Reddy and Janardhana Reddy had also been acquired and they had filed applications under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the LA Act’, for brevity) and upon reference, the Civil Court had re-determined the compensation in LAC No.11/2013 by its judgment dated 29.08.2013 at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq.ft. The petitioners therefore had filed an application under Section 28-A of the LA Act before the first respondent on 15.10.2013 to

¶52

¶53

re-determine the compensation on par with the judgment in LAC.No.11/2013 and the application was filed within the time prescribed under the said section. The respondent had received the application but thereafter, has not taken any further steps. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this Court.

¶54

The learned counsel for the BDA vehemently opposes the petition and states that the petitioners admittedly having filed an application seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation, would be precluded from taking recourse to Section 28-A of the LA Act during the pendency of their application seeking such reference.

¶55

On the ground that the tenor of Section 28-A would indicate that the same can be invoked by a person who may not have filed an application under Section 18 and conversely, the learned counsel for the BDA would seek to presume that if a person has indeed filed an application, recourse to Section 28-A

¶56

¶57

would not be available. This, on the face of it, is an incorrect interpretation.

¶58

Section 28-A of the LA Act is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

¶59

“28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. - (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, subsection (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:

¶60

Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for

¶61

¶62

obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

¶63

(2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.

¶64

(3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.”

¶65

(emphasis supplied)

¶66

The emphasis sought to be placed would only indicate

¶67

that even if an application under Section 18 of the LA Act had not been made, it would be open for a land owner to take recourse to Section 28-A and seek re-determination of compensation, in accordance with an award, passed on a

¶68

¶69

reference, by the Civil Court. When that being so, it would not be logical to conclude that a person who seeks enhancement of compensation and a reference not having been made, and when the matter was kept pending. It would no longer require any adjudication if there can readily be a re-determination on the basis of a judgment passed in a reference. Therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to the enhanced compensation on re-determination, subject to the other sub sections, being complied with. There would be no need for a reference when the petitioner is limiting the enhancement to the amount determined by the Civil Court. This is the end result of the admitted circumstances that in respect of identical lands, there has been a reference and there has been an enhancement. The petitioners would be equally entitled to such enhanced compensation. Therefore, the opposition is ill-founded and is not tenable. Hence, the petitioners merely seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer before whom an application has been made according to the petitioners within time as

¶70

¶71

prescribed under the Section, and it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an appropriate award re-determining the compensation at a rate which has been granted in LAC 11/2013 dated 29.08.2013, with all such benefits that the petitioners may be entitled to. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. The petitioners shall forthwith withdraw the petition filed under Section 18 of the LA Act before the Civil Court.

¶72

The respondent – Land Acquisition Officer is directed to expedite the consideration of the application of the petitioners and it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine the compensation and to pass an award in accordance with law and

¶73

with expedition, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, if not

¶74

earlier.

¶75

Sd/- JUDGE

¶76

Sri.R.Bhoopala Reddy v. the Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.R.Bhoopala Reddy v. the Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kum Anitha Sali Vs the Common Law Admisstion Test

Dr Satheesh S R Vishwakarma Vs Bangalore Medical College

K. Mahadeva Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr a M Saleem Vs Registrar of Companies Karnataka

Official Liquidator of M/S Avesta Biotherapeutics Vs Sri Wentink Jan Koenraad

H N Gangadhar Vs the Official Liquidator