Allowed

Basanagouda S/O. Shankargouda Patil v. the Project Director

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2023WP/103952/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an amended land acquisition award and a subsequent order withdrawing compensation that had been previously directed for payment. The court held the respondents lacked jurisdiction to amend the award under the National Highway Act, 1956, and directed them to pay the awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 03.12.2013 and amended award dated 03.12.2013 were quashed, and the respondents were directed to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioners within three months.

Basanagouda S/O. Shankargouda Patil Vs the Project Director — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 103952 OF 2014 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 BASANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

¶9

1A. VINODKUMAR S/O.BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE-58 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,

¶10

1B. VIDHYAVATI /O.SURESH KAMATE, AGE- 52 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD.

¶11

1C. CHITAKALA W/O.MAHANTESH KAMATE, AGE- 48 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,

¶12

1D. PARIMALA W/O.PRITHVIRAJ DR, AGE-45 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,

¶13

1E. MALTESH S/O.BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE-43 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE,

¶14

ALL ARE R/O.SHRI CHANNABASAVA LAYOUT, KUDALA SANGAMA CROSS, NH.NO.13, NANDANOOR, TAL-HUNGUND, DIST-BELAGAVI.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, NEAR TOOL NAKA, DHARWAD.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR THE LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 13, HUNGUND, BAGALKOT.

¶22

PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT, BELGAL, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶23

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, BIJAPUR.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶26

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4-SERVED)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/12/2013 PASSED IN BY RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 DISBURSE THE UN-DISPUTED AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE AID MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT FOR.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶31

ORDER

¶32

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 03.12.2013 passed by the 4^th respondent and for consequential directions to them and for other reliefs.

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and perused the material on record.

¶34

Respondent No.3/Grampanchayat has been served with notice of this petition and has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested this petition.

¶35

In addition to reiterating the various contentions

¶36

urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to the award dated 20.05.2011 in order to point out that in terms of the said award, compensation was directed to be paid in favour of the petitionerBasanagouda S/o.Shankargouda Patil by respondent No.2. Subsequently, since representation submitted by the

¶37

¶38

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶39

petitioner-Basanagouda to the 2^nd respondent to disburse the compensation amount was not complied with by him, the petitioner-Basanagouda approached this Court in Writ Petition No.66239/2011, which was disposed off by this Court vide final order dated 24.10.2013 directing the respondents to release the amount in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Subsequently, the petitioner-Basanagouda submitted a representation dated 12.11.2013 to the respondents, who called upon the petitioner to furnish all relevant documents including No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the 3^rd respondent-Grampanchayat. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite submitting all documents, the 4^th respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order purporting to amend the award thereby withdrawing the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner which is illegal, contrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the National Highway

¶40

¶41

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶42

Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act, 1956’) and as such the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. During pendency of this petition petitionerBasanagouda Patil died on 11.12.2019, by this Court order dated 10.02.2021 his legal representatives are came on record as petitioner Nos.1A to 1E.

¶43

Per Contra , the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.66329/2011 (LA-RES) dated 24.10.2013 referred to supra , the respondent No.3/Grampanchayath also submitted an application putting forth its claim over the subject land, as a result of which, the 4^th respondent proceeded to pass an amended award dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure-R5) and consequently, the impugned endorsement/order passed by the 4^th respondent pursuant to the amended award is correct, legal and proper and

¶44

¶45

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶46

does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶47

I have been anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The

¶48

following point arises for consideration in the present petition.

¶49

(a) Whether respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are

¶50

entitled to amend the award dated 20.05.2011 by passing the impugned amended award dated

¶51

03.12.2013?

¶52

In the context, it is relevant to note that the subject lands are acquired under the provisions of the Act, 1956, to which, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 do not apply except to the limited extent of awarding compensation in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and

¶53

Another Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 . However, a perusal of the remaining provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956 including the Section 3H in

¶54

¶55

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶56

relation to passing of an award and payment of compensation will clearly indicate that there is no provision much less in provision similar to Section 13(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which permits correction / amendment of the clerical or arithmetical mistakes or errors in the award. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any statutory provision in the National Highway Act similar or identical to Section 13(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, I am of the considered opinion that respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 did not have jurisdiction or authority of law to amend the award dated 20.05.2011 passed in favour of the petitioner and consequently the amended award dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure-R5) as well as the impugned order Annexure-K deserves to be quashed.

¶57

Insofar as the contention of respondent Nos.1, 2

¶58

and 4 that the award was amended at the instance of the 3^rd respondent/ Grampanchayat who put forth a claim over the subject land on the ground that it situated in a buffer

¶59

¶60

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶61

zone. It is relevant to state that even prior to putting forth of the said claim, the Grampanchayat had issued no objection certificate (NOC) at Annexure-J dated 21.11.2013 by specifically referring Writ Petition No.663920/2011, wherein this Court had directed respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to pay compensation in favour of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, merely because since respondent No.3/Grampanchayat subsequently put forth a claim dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure-R4), in the light of the earlier NOC issued by the 3^rd respondent/Grampanchayat coupled with inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 to amend/modify award or to issue the impugned endorsement/ order, I am of the considered opinion that the said communication/letter dated 27.11.2013 submitted by the 3^rd respondent/Grampanchayat to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 could not have been made basis by them to pass the amended award dated 03.12.2013 Annexure-

¶62

¶63

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶64

R5 nor issued impugned endorsement which deserves to

¶65

be quashed on this ground alone also.

¶66

As stated supra , in the light of the positive directions issued by this Court in Writ Petiton No.66239/2011 upholding claim of the petitioners to their right to receive compensation for the acquired land and the specific directions issued by this Court to respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to pay compensation in favour of the petitioner-Basanagouda, I am of the considered opinion that the 4^th respondent committed an error in issuing the impugned endorsement/order at Annexure-K dated 03.12.2013 which deserves to be quashed.

¶67

In the result, I pass the following :

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶70

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-K dated 03.12.2013 as well as amended award at Annexure-R-5 dated 03.12.2013 are hereby quashed.

¶71

10 -

¶72

WP No. 103952 of 2014

¶73

(iii) The concerned respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are hereby directed to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner Nos.1A to 1E who are the legal representatives of petitioner-Basanagouda who died during pendency of this petition, in terms of the award at Annexure-R1 dated 20.05.2011 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶74

SD JUDGE

¶75

CKK

Basanagouda S/O. Shankargouda Patil v. the Project Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanagouda S/O. Shankargouda Patil v. the Project Director

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

Sri Mohan S/O Annappa Shanalli Vs the Executive Engineer (Elec)

Smt. Premavva W/O Devappa Uppar Vs Dyamappa S/O Kariyappa Bhavi @ Kinnal

Ravindra S/O Dundappa Kittur Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Lila Aliyas Lilavathi W/O Ashok Bevinmar Vs Smt. Yellakka Alias Yallakka W/O Yellappa Kalal

Shiddappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Kishor Kumar Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited