Allowed

Swamy Gowda v. the National Highway Authority of India

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2021WP/9402/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an NHAI communication directing lower officers to reduce land compensation to match a different local award, thereby altering an existing arbitral award. The court granted a Writ of Certiorari quashing the communication and directed the payment of the full differential amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari quashing impugned communication; direction to disburse differential amount with interest within eight weeks.

Swamy Gowda Vs the National Highway Authority of India — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.9402 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SWAMY GOWDA, S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT POLICE STATION ROAD, KRISHNARAJASAGARA – 571 607, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA HOBLI, MANDYA – 571 401. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, BENGALURU – MYSURU DIVISION, BASAVANAPURA, RAMANAGAR – 562 159. REPT. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶11

REGIONAL OFFICER, THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES, REGIONAL OFFICE NO.13, NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, TUMKURU MAIN ROAD, NEAR METRO STATION, BENGALURU – 560 073.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PROJECT IMPLEMENTING DIVISION NATIONAL HIGHWAY – 275, BANGALORE – MYSURU DIVISION,

¶14

¶15

BASAVANAPURA (RAMADEVARAPADA), RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶16

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES, NATIONAL HIGHWAY – 275, BANGALORE – MYSURU DIVISION, BASAVANAPURA (RAMADEVARAPADA), RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B V KRISHNA, AGA FOR R3 & R4; SRI. CHAITANYA V JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATIONS DATED 01.06.2020, AS PER ANNEXUREH, AND TO DISBURSE A SUM OF RS.65,55,264/- WITH ACCUMULATED INTEREST BEING THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD AS PER ANNEXURE-B, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT FROM FEBRUARY 2016 TO MARCH 2017 AND AT THE RATE OF 9 PERCENT FROM 16.03.2017 TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT WITHIN A TIME TO BE STIPULATED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner a looser of lands in acquisition for the widening of a National Highway is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing an intra-departmental communication dated 01.06.2020, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H; it is issued by the General Manager (T) & Project Director of National Highways Authority of India to

¶23

¶24

the Special Land Acquisition Officer & Competent

¶25

Authority.

¶26

Thus the impugned communication reads as

¶27

under:

¶28

“With respect to subject cited above, it is advised to examine the Arbitration Award in respect of Sy.No.150 & 151/1 of Brahmapura village of Srirangapattana Taluk, Mandya District with respect to similar kind of cases pertains to SLAO & CA, Malavalli award dated 31.01.2020 as already approved from RO, Bengaluru and in order to avoid interest burden on NHAI”.

¶29

The effect of this letter is the most likely diminution of the amount of compensation otherwise payable to the petitioner in terms of the arbitral award dated 21.09.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-B.

¶30

The respondents nos. 1 & 2 have entered appearance through their Panel Counsel; the respondent nos. 3 & 4 are represented by learned AGA; both the Panel Counsel and the AGA vehemently oppose the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned communication contending that it is only intradepartmental and that the petition is premature.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶32

and having perused the petition papers this court is

¶33

¶34

inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶35

(a) The NHAI has acquired petitioner’s lands in question for the widening of National Highway No.275 (Bengaluru to Mysuru) is not in dispute; the arbitral award has been passed u/s.3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 by the 3^rd respondent by treating the subject lands as having been converted to non-agricultural purpose in terms of Sec.95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, emerges from the record; in fact there is no much dispute about this fact matrix.

¶36

(b) As already mentioned above, the impugned communication has the damage potential to the interest of the petitioner inasmuch as it directs the SLAO to scale down the amount of compensation to make it on par with Malavalli Awards; this virtually amounts to sitting in appeal over the statutory arbitral award; the same is illegal, to say the least, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

¶38

Counsel for the NHAI that what is impugned is only an intra-departmental communication and therefore challenge

¶39

¶40

thereto is premature, if not unsustainable, is difficult to agree with; a potential injury gives rise to a choate cause of action; a citizen need not await till he suffers an actual injury in law; an argument to the contrary amounts to asking a patient to defer preventive treatment till after a gangrene develops in his organs; this is not to say that the courts would readily grant preventive remedy for all the anticipated injuries; contention of the kind does not avail to an instrumentality of the State like the NHAI which has to conduct itself consistent with the rules of reason & justice.

¶41

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned communication; the respondents nos. 1, 2 & 4 are directed to disburse to the petitioner the differential of the amount with the accumulated interest in terms of the Arbitral Award dated 21.09.2019 at Annexure-B within eight weeks.

¶42

Should delay be brooked in complying with the above direction, the respondent NHAI shall pay to the petitioner an additional interest at the rate of 18% p.a. for the

¶43

¶44

delayed period and the same may be recovered from its

erring officials.

Now, no costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Bsv

Swamy Gowda v. the National Highway Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swamy Gowda v. the National Highway Authority of India

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

xxxxxx Vs the Registrar General

Mrs Joyce Lynn Peters Vs Reserve Bank of India

General Electric Company Vs Triveni Turbine Limited

Mrs B v D'Sa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Ashwini. S. Kumar Vs M/S. H.D.B. Financial Service Ltd.

Sidlaghatta Town Vs the State of Karnataka