Disposed

Jabbar Nihal Wati Altaf v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2016WP/200660/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging notice and demolition related to land acquisition. Due to illegal demolition and prolonged delay in compensation, the Court directed parties to finalize compensation via consent terms, fixing rates and payment schedules under the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

Consent terms entered by parties on record directing settlement within stipulated timeframes including interest and phased payments.

Jabbar Nihal Wati Altaf Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2016

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos.207059 & 207122/2014 C/w

¶8

WRIT PETITION Nos.207177-182/2014 201253-257/2015, 201334/2015, 200660/2016, 200661/2016, 201429/2016 202153-157/2016 (LB-RES)

¶9

IN W.P.Nos.207059 & 207122/2014

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

ANAND S/O VENKATESH JOSHI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O RAGHAVENDRA CHAWL M.G.ROAD, VIJAYPUR – 586 101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAY B. KULAKARNI & SMT. HEMA L KULAKARNI, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYPUR DISTRICT OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶16

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶18

GANDHI CHOWK, VIJAYPUR – 586 101 ... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI A. SYEED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 23^RD SEPTEMBER 2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AND D1- COMMISSIONERVIJAYPUR CITY CORPORATION AND ETC.

¶21

IN W.P.Nos.207177-182/2014

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

VIJAY S/O SITARAMCHARYA JAHAGIRDAR AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O M.G.ROAD/ MAIN ROAD, BIJAPUR – 586 101

¶24

GOPAL S/O RAMRAO BAGALKOTKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O M.G.ROAD/ MAIN ROAD, BIJAPUR – 586 101

¶25

BASAVARAJ @ BASAPPA S/O SIDARAYAPPA SAVALGI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O M.G.ROAD/ MAIN ROAD, BIJAPUR – 586 101

¶26

SAMBAHAJI S/O SHAMRAO LANGOTI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O M.G.ROAD/ MAIN ROAD, BIJAPUR – 586 101

¶27

INDUMATI W/O ARAJUNRAO CHAVAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O M.G.ROAD/ MAIN ROAD, BIJAPUR

¶28

SANJAY S/O SHIVAJI JADHAV AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O M.G.ROAD/ MAIN ROAD BIJAPUR – 586 101 … PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI VIJAY B. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶33

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶34

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIJAPUR DISTRICT OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND BIJAPUR – 586 101

¶35

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANDHI CHOWK, BIJAPUR 586 101

¶36

… RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI AMRESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶38

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPNESATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013, IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING NO. C.T.S. NO. 272, MEASURING 439.87 SQFT CTS WARD NO.4, SITUATED ON THE M.G. ROAD / MAIN ROAD, BIJAPUR CITY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND ETC.

¶39

IN W.P.Nos.201253-257/2015

¶40

BETWEEN:

¶41

SURENDRA S/O SIDDRAM KEMBHAVI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC : MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL R/O : SHIVAJI CIRCLE M.G.ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101

¶42

RAKESH S/O SRINIVASRAO SHETTY AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS R/O : PREMSRI NILAY, EAR SASNOOR HOSPITAL VIJAYPUR-586 101

¶43

¶44

3.	IRFAN S/O BASHASAB SANGLIKAR AGED 34 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS R/O : OPP LAXMI TEMPLE M.G.ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101
4.	ARUN S/O GOPALRAO KEMBHAVI AGED 70 YEARS, OCC : RETIRED R/O : OPP LAXMI TEMPLE M.G.ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101
5.	AMBALAPADI MAHABALA S/O RAMANNA SHETTY AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS R/O : OPP LAXMI TEMPLE M.G.ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101 PETITIONERS
(BY S	RI VIJAYA B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.	THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001
2.	THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001
3.	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYPUR DISTRICT
	OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND VIJAYPUR – 586 101
4.	THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANDHI CHOWK, VIJAYPUR – 586 101 … RESPONDENTS
(BY S	RI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI	AMARESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶45

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 23^RD SEPTEMBER 2014 (ANNEXURE-D TO D8) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4-COMMISSIONER-VIJAYPUR CITY CORPORATION AND ETC.

¶46

¶47

IN W.P.No.201334/2015

¶48

BETWEEN

¶49

ANITA MALLAPPA NIDONI W/O MALLAPPA NIDONI (THROUGH HER CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR.MALLAPPA SADASHIVAPPA NIDONI) AGE: 53 YEARS, BEHIND ANAND TALKIES KALIKA ROAD, SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYPUR

¶50

... PETITIONER

¶51

(BY SRI VIJAY B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND

¶53

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶54

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶55

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYPUR DISTRICT OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶56

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANDHI CHOWK, VIJAYPUR – 586 101 … RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI AMARESH S. ROJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶58

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AND ACQUIRE PROPERTY UNDER THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RE-NOTIFY AND IMPLEMENT THE MASTER PLAN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF NEW ACT AND ETC.

¶59

¶60

IN W.P.No.200660/2016

¶61

BETWEEN:

¶62

JABBAR NIHAL WATI ALTAF AGE: MAJOR, R/O CTS NO.410/B WARD NO.9, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE VIJAYAPURA.

¶63

... PETITIONER

¶64

(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶65

AND

¶66

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶67

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶68

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶69

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANDHI CHOWK, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101

¶70

… RESPONDENTS

¶71

(BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶72

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER’S PROPERTY BEARING CTS NO.410/B WARD NO.9 SITUATED AT BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE AREA, MAIN ROAD, VIJAYAPUR VIDE ANNEXURE- A WITHIN STIPULATED TIME AND PAY PROPER COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶73

¶74

IN W.P.No.200661/2016

¶75

BETWEEN:

¶76

WATI MOHAMMAD SAYEED S/O. SAYEED WATI ALTAF MOHAMMAD AGE: 24, R/O. CTS NO.410/A WARD NO.9, BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE VIJAYAPUR

¶77

... PETITIONER (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶78

AND

¶79

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶80

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶81

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶82

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANDHI CHOWK, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101 … RESPONDENTS

¶83

(BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶84

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS, TO INITIATE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BEARING CTS No.410/A WARD No.9 SITUATED AT BASAVESHWAR CIRCLE AREA, MAIN ROAD, VIJAYAPUR WITHIN STIPULATED TIME AND PAY PROPER COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶85

¶86

IN W.P.No.201429/2016

¶87

BETWEEN

¶88

RAMESH S/O BHAURAO KHARANDE AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS RESIDENT OF SHANTIVEER NAGAR, MANAGOLI ROAD, IBRAHIMPUR, VIJAYAPUR-586101

¶89

... PETITIONER

¶90

(BY SRI VIJAY B. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶91

AND

¶92

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶93

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001

¶94

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYPUR DISTRICT OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶95

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANDHI CHOWK, VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶96

… RESPONDENTS

¶97

(BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶98

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 [“NEW ACT OF 2013” FOR SHORT] AND ACCORDINGLY PASS AWARD, PAY FAIR COMPENSATION, AND MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAID PROPERTY, IN A TIME BOUND MANNER AND ETC.

¶99

¶100

IN W.P. Nos.202153-157/2016 And W.P.Nos.202317-320/2016

¶101

BETWEEN:

¶102

SRI SATISH S/O. RAMRAO BAGALKOTKAR AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS RESIDENT OF BAGALKOTKAR CHAWL M G ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101

¶103

SRI NARASIMHA W/O KRISHNARAO KULKARNI AGE:81 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED RESIDENT OF AARADHANA NILAYA NEAR DARBAR HIGH SCHOOL BEHIND SBI, STATION ROAD VIJAYPUR-586 101

¶104

SRI BASIR S/O AHMED SUTAR AGED 62 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS RESIDENT OF 462, MG ROAD VIJAYPUR-586 101

¶105

SRI MAHESH W/O GANGADHAR HIREDESAI AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS RESIDENT OF NEAR MADHULA MARUTI TEMPLE M G ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101

¶106

SRI UMESH W/O GANGADHAR HIREDESAI AGE:50 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS RESIDENT OF NEAR MADHULA MARUTI TEMPLE M G ROAD, VIJAYPUR-586 101 ... PETITIONERS

¶107

(BY SRI VIJAY B. KULAKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶108

AND

¶109

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶110

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALURU – 560 001

¶111

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYPUR DISTRICT

¶112

¶113

OPPOSITE CITY CENTRAL BUS STAND VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶114

THE COMMISSIONER CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANDHI CHOWK, VIJAYPUR – 586 101

¶115

… RESPONDENTS

¶116

(BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI P.S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶117

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICES DATED 23^RD SEPTEMBER 2014 (ANNEXURE-C TO C-8) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4-COMMISSIONER-VIJAYPUR CITY CORPORATION AND ETC.

¶118

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶119

O R D E R

¶120

Since these writ petitions arise out of the same factual

¶121

matrix, and raise the same legal issue, they are being decided by this common order.

¶122

Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners happen to be residents of Vijayapur, and are the owners of different properties in the said city. The Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Vijayapur had promulgated a Master Plan of 2006, wherein a proposal was made to widen the Mahatma Gandhi Road (‘M.G.Road’ for short) to the extent of 100 feet. In order to carry out the said Master Plan,

¶123

¶124

respondent No.4, the Commissioner issued a notice dated 08.09.2014, to the petitioners, calling them to a meeting for implementation of the Master Plan, and for proposed widening of the road.

¶125

On 23.09.2014, the Commissioner issued a notice and offered a compensation amount to the petitioners, and asked that the properties belonging to petitioners should be handed over to the Corporation. However, as the petitioners were unhappy with the proposed compensation, on 25.09.2014, they filed their objections to the notice dated 23.09.2014, and rejected the offer made by the Commissioner. Since the petitioners were still aggrieved by the proposed action of the Commissioner, they filed a writ petition before this court, namely W.P.No.205731-732/2014, wherein they challenged the notice dated 23.09.2014. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the learned counsel for Corporation gave an undertaking that the Corporation would not move against the petitioners, without following the due process of law. However, despite the undertaking given by the Corporation, on 18.10.2014, without following the

¶126

¶127

due process of law, the City Municipal Corporation demolished the properties belonging to the petitioners. For two long years, the petitioners kept on hoping that the Corporation would work out the compensation, and would pay the compensation to them. However, despite lapse of two years, the Corporation has failed to pay a single penny to the petitioners. Hence, these petitions before this Court.

¶128

On 09.06.2016, when these cases were taken up, this court raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: whether the process of law was followed before demolishing the properties, which belongs to the petitioners? To this query, the learned counsel for respondents frankly conceded that the process established by law was not adhered. Therefore, by order dated 09.06.2016, this court directed the petitioners to appear before the Deputy Commissioner Vijayapura. This court further directed the Deputy Commissioner to negotiate and settle the compensation amount with the petitioners, keeping in mind the present market value of the property.

¶129

¶130

By order dated 22.06.2016, this court directed both the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur and the Commissioner of City Municipal Corporation, Vijayapur to be present before this court on 23.06.2016. Consequently, on 23.06.2016, Mr. Randeep .D, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur and Mr. Ramesh Shankarappa Koppad, the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Vijayapur, appeared before this Court. This court directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the grievance of the petitioners, and to negotiate with them, with regard to the compensation, while keeping in mind Section 26 and 28 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). This court also directed the Deputy Commissioner to appear before this court on 08.07.2016 and to inform this court about the settlement reached between the petitioners and the respondents.

¶131

On 08.07.2016, Mr. Randeep .D, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur, appeared before this court and explained to this court about the final outcome of the

¶132

¶133

negotiation between the parties. He informed this court that he has taken the guidelines for the property, which are applicable for the year 2016-17, and added 100% Solatium, and is willing to pay interest for two years for which the amount has been delayed. He also gave an undertaking that the compensation amount shall be paid within four months from the date of the final order passed by this court. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are willing to accept the offer made by the Deputy Commissioner and would like to close the chapter. Therefore, this court directed both the parties to reduce the compromise into writing and to submit the same before this court.

¶134

Consequently, today, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur, and the petitioners have appeared before this court and have submitted the ‘Consent Terms’ entered between them.

¶135

The ‘Consent Terms’ submitted by the parties shall be taken on record.

¶136

¶137

According to the ‘Consent Terms’, the respondents

¶138

have agreed to take common base rate as Rs.4,950/- per square feet of the land, for those properties situate between Sri Basaweshwar Circle to Tripurasundari Circle, and Rs.4,750/- per square feet of the land, for those properties situate between Tripurasundari Circle to Shivaji Circle. According to the parties, this common base rate has been fixed, keeping in mind the reasonable market value of properties, situated on this stretch of road, and this common base rate would form the basis for calculation of compensation offered in terms of Section 26 of the Act.

¶139

The respondents have also agreed to pay 100% Solatium to the petitioners in line with Section 30 (1) of the Act.

¶140

Furthermore, the respondents have agreed to offer interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the Twenty-four months, in line with Section 30 (3) of the Act.

¶141

The respondents have also agreed to pay the value of the structures, which have been damaged, in terms of

¶142

¶143

Section 28 of the Act, and as per the assessment done by the Public Works Department, as considered in the total amount offered vide notice dated 23.09.2014.

¶144

The parties have also agreed that the area to be considered for the purpose of payment of settlement shall be the area as appearing in the notice dated 23.09.2014.

¶145

The parties have equally agreed that in case there is discrepancies in the area as quoted, and the actual area required for the road widening, then separate remeasurement shall be conducted, and payment shall be paid on the basis of re-measured area, duly certified by the officials of respondent No.4. The re-measurement shall be completed on or before 07.08.2016 based on specific representation to be filed by the petitioners pointing out the discrepancy in the area to the respondent No.4.

¶146

It is also agreed between the parties that as far as the remaining portion of the buildings, that have been partly demolished, the petitioners can take appropriate measures to protect the existing part of the building, and to repair the

¶147

¶148

same. The respondent No.4 has agreed to issue full “occupation certificate” and “building completion certificate” free of charge, as required by the petitioners to complete the documentation of the remaining portion of the building of the petitioners. The deviation only upto six inches would be allowed to the petitioners.

¶149

The parties have also agreed that since the petitioners fall under the category of “Project Affected Person”, the respondent No.4 will not insist upon the set back with the petitioners. However, such cases will be addressed on case to case basis, and shall be addressed as per the prevailing rules of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and Rules.

¶150

It is also agreed between the parties that respondent No.4 shall pay compensation amount within four months by way of Cheque payments to the petitioners in the following installments, namely:-

¶151

First cheque of an amount equivalent to 30% of the total settlement amount shall be paid to the petitioners on or

¶152

¶153

before 30.07.2016. The said amount shall be treated as “advance settlement”.

¶154

The remaining 70% shall be paid within four months from the date of first installment or on or before 30.11.2016. In case, the amount has not been paid within the stipulated period of four months, then the remaining amount shall an carry interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

¶155

The parties have agreed that physical possession of the land will be handed over to the respondents within three days upon realization of advance settlement of 30%. Interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable on the balance of 70% amount, if it is paid beyond four months from the date of first installment payment.

¶156

The petitioners have agreed to register the land, to the extent handed over to the respondents, free of all encumbrances, upon receipt of full consideration as settlement amount of compensation.

¶157

¶158

The petitioners have also agreed to allow the respondents to enter into the land, and continue development of the road, upon receipt and realization of the advance settlement amount.

¶159

The parties have also agreed that they shall register the Deed of Transfer/Sale on or before seven working days of payment of and realization of final balance of 70% compensation amount.

¶160

The petitioners also bind themselves in not demanding or approaching any court seeking any additional compensation/ damages, or any other type of relief and rehabilitation beyond the scope of the compensation settled between the parties.

¶161

Considering the fact that these set of cases arise in a peculiar factual situation, considering the fact that petitioners had to wait for two long years for compensation to be paid, considering the fact that these are the cases of great hardship, where the rights of the petitioners have been violated by the respondents, in these factual circumstances,

¶162

¶163

this court has directed the parties to settle the compensation amongst themselves. This court directs both the parties to scrupulously follow and implement the “Consent Terms” within the time mentioned hereinabove.

¶164

Due to the pro-active role played by the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur and a laudable role, indeed, the petitioners are satisfied with the offer made by the respondents. This court records its appreciation of the role played by Mr. Randeep .D, the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapur. If it had not been for his concern for the plight of petitioners, and for his adherence to the rule of law, this controversy and dispute, which has been hanging for the last two years, would not come to an end. However, keeping in mind, the unique facts and circumstances, this court makes it abundantly clear that the settlement entered between the petitioners and the respondents would not be treated as precedent for any other claimants or persons who may be aggrieved by the actions of the respondents.

¶165

¶166

The Deputy Commissioner has further submitted that although he had made a proposal to the State for grant of additional fund as a large amount has to be paid to the petitioners, he is yet to hear from the State for releasing of the additional amount.

¶167

Considering the fact that petitioners had lost not only their properties, but also in many cases their livelihood, that too, because of the illegal act of the Corporation, considering the fact that the State is required to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner, considering the fact that State is always duty-bound to look after the welfare of its people, this court hopes that the Government would be generous enough to release the required amount so that the settlement entered between the parties can be honoured by the Deputy Commissioner. The Government, this court hopes, would be well aware that the faith of the people is essential for good governance. Once the Deputy Commissioner has settled the dispute, the State should standby the commitments made by the Deputy Commissioner and should, certainly release the additional

¶168

¶169

amount, which needs to be paid to the petitioners in order to get rid of their feeling that great injustice has been done to them by the State.

¶170