Disposed

Sri. Krishnappa v. Union of India

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023WP/14372/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the reduction of compensation payable to the petitioner for land acquired under the National Highways Act. The Court directed the authority to initiate arbitration proceedings under Section 3G and ordered payment of the balance amount from the original award within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to file fresh representation; respondent to initiate arbitration proceedings and pay the balance compensation within eight weeks.

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. SRI. HUCHAIAH, RESIDING AT T. BEGUR, BEGUR POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. S V BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

UNION OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, 'TRANSPORT BHAVAN', SAMSAD MARGH, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON.

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NELAMANGALA-TUMKUR NATIONAL HIGHWAY-48, (OLD NH-4), INDIAN NATIONAL HIGHWAY CORPORATION, NO. 678/3, NEERU BHAVI KEMPANNA EXTENSION,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶17

HEBBAL-560 024, BENGALURU.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. IRFANA NAZEER.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-2 TO FORTHWITH PAY THE PETITIONER THE BALANCE OF THE AMOUNT AWARDED IN CASE NO.LAQ/NG-48 (OLD NO.4) CR 06/2018-19 (MAROHALLI) DTD 10.01.2020 AT ANNX-F ALONG WITH INTEREST AND OTHER BENEFIT OVER AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2366,510 PAIDDIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COST OF THIS WPPOST THIS WP FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING BEFORE SINGLE JUDGEVT, SN DTD 07.07.23

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard, Sri. S.V. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶24

and Sri. Arbaz Zain, learned counsel appearing for the Ms.

¶25

Irfana Nazeer, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Sri. Sainath D.M. learned counsel appearing for Sri. Narayan Babu.D.N, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶26

Present petition is filed seeking direction to respondent No.2-SLAO and Competent Authority to pay the petitioner the balance amount awarded in Case No.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶28

LAQ/NH/48 (Old No.4) CR-06/2018-19 (Marohalli) 10.01.2020 as per Annexure-F, along with interest and other benefits, after deducting Rs.23,66,510/- already paid to the petitioner.

¶29

Sri. S.V. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the writ petition submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of the property bearing No. 288/505 situated at Marohalli Village also known as T.Begur, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,

¶30

Bengaluru Rural District measuring East to West 58 meters and North to South 32 meters (approximately 12 guntas). The said property formed part of larger extent of land bearing Sy.No. 41/1 which was measuring 4 acres owned by one Sri. Gagarajaiah. The said Sri. Gagarajaiah had sold the southern portion of the said property situated within the boundaries mentioned in the petition in favour

¶31

of one Sri. Guruvaiah in terms of deed of sale dated 11.06.1970, and the said Sri. Guruvaiah had put up Mangalore Tiled roof house in a portion of the said

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶33

property. The said property was brought within the limit of Gramatana of Marohalli Village as far back as in the year 1985-86 itself and it was assessed for residential purposes as per the Demand Register of T.Begur in terms of the circular bearing No.RGN.55/86-87 dated 22.05.1986 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore.

¶34

That the petitioner herein purchased the said property vide deed of sale dated 05.02.1988 and has been in the possession and enjoyment of the said property ever

¶35

since then. A portion of the said property measuring 324 Sq.mtrs was subject matter of notification dated 13.12.2016 issued under Section 3-A(1) and followed by the Final notification dated 12.12.2017 issued under Section 3-D(1) of the National Highway Act, 1956.

¶36

The respondent No.2-SLAO passed the award dated 10.01.2020 as per Annexure-F. Paragraph No.10 of the award reads that as per RTC Sy.No. 41/1 and 41/2 total area available is 3 acres 27 guntas and out of this an extent of 1267 Sq.mtrs has been acquired. The award is

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶39

fixed at NAK (Res. Roadside) rate. As read in RTC 1. Sri. Guruvaiah S/o Kumbalakuntegowda is the khatedar and it is ordered to pay the award amount after verifying the relevant documents. The said paragraph further reads, the amount of Rs.3,45,38,906/- is fixed for land only to an extent of 1267 Sq.mtrs acquired in Sy.No.41/1 and 41/2 of Marohalli Village.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the aforesaid material submits that admittedly out of 1267 sq.mtrs of land acquired a portion measuring 324 sq.mtrs belonging to the petitioner form part of the said extent of land. He further submits that, the aforesaid compensation fixed by the respondent No.2-SLAO at the rate of Rs. 3,45,38,906/- also includes the extent of land belonging to the petitioner. Thus he submits calculated proportionately the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.88,32,240/- to the extent of land belonging to the petitioner. He further submits that out of the said amount payable to the petitioner only a sum of Rs.23,66,510/- has been paid as per Annexure-E. It is this action on the part of the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶43

respondent-authority in not releasing the amount proportionate to the extent of land belonging to the petitioner, instead releasing lesser amount has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the notice dated 11.04.2023 produced at Annexure-G submits that the petitioner had made a demand for the payment of the balance amount together with the interest but the same has not been responded to. Hence he submits that the direction be issued as sought for.

¶45

In response Sri. Sainath D.M. learned counsel appearing for Sri. Narayan Babu.D.N, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. submit that after passing the award at the Annexure-F and the same was forwarded to the Project Director for his approval. Learned counsel for the respondent furnishes a copy of communication dated 04.08.2021 issued by the Deputy General Manager of National Highway Authority of India addressed to the Project Director, in that he refers paragraph-2 of the said

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶47

communication wherein it is stated that, upon verification it was found that there was a discrepancy in working out the amount of Rs. 3,62,592/- in respect of certain lands including land in Sy.No.41/1 and Sy.No.41/2. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits upon verification it was apparently found that the said land remained dry land and it was not converted land. Therefore, the determination of the compensation by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-F was erroneous and had to be reduced taking into the consideration the rate applicable for the dry land. Accordingly, recommendation was made to reduce the compensation payable to the petitioner and after reduction of the said compensation the entire amount of Rs.23,66,510/- has been paid as per Annexure-E.

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in view of finding of subsequent facts by the Project Director and Deputy General Manager as per the communication referred to above, the amount has been

¶49

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶50

rightly reduced and paid warranting no interest. Hence seeks for dismissal.

¶51

Heard and perused the records.

¶52

Acquisition of land to an extent of 324 sq.mtrs

¶53

forming part of land bearing Sy.No.41/1 and 41/2 belonging to the petitioner is not in dispute. Passing of the award as per Annexure-F by respondent No.2 determining the compensation payable to the extent of 1267 sq.mtrs of land forming part of Sy.No.41/1 and 41/2 in sum of Rs.3,45,38,906/- is also not in dispute. It is

¶54

relevant at this juncture to refer to Subsection(5) of Section 3G of National Highways Act, 1956, which reads as under:

¶55

" If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government."

¶56

Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that once

¶57

the award is passed and if the same is not acceptable by either of the parties, they are required to initiate

¶58

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶60

proceedings by filing an application before the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government and there appears to be no other provisions empowering the respondent No.2 or any other authority to revise or reduce of the award passed. The communication dated 04.08.2021 addressed by the Deputy General Manager to the Project Director and further communication dated 09.08.2021 addressed by the Project Director to the Special Land Acquisition Officer do not refer to any provision of law under which such communication have been addressed, reducing the amount of compensation.

¶61

On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the

¶62

respondent is unable to point out any provision of law which authorizes or empowers either Project Director or Deputy General Manager of the National Highway Authority of India to sit over the award passed by the respondent No.2-SLAO either to revise or to reduce the rate thereof. In the absence of any specific provision the communication dated 04.08.2021 and 09.08.2021 issued by the Project Director and Deputy General Manager of the

¶63

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶64

National Highway Authority of India who apparently having further verifying the documents recommended the SLAO to reduce the compensation. Such an approach can neither be encouraged nor accepted in the absence of any specific provisions of law.

¶65

In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation payable as determined in the award at Annexure-F, more particularly as per paragraph 10 of the said award, proportionate to the extent of land which the petitioner is entitled to.

¶66

At this stage learned counsel for the respondentAuthority submit that an opportunity be reserved to the respondent-Authority to take steps as contemplated under Subsection (5) of Section 3G of National Highways Act, 1956. It is upto the respondent-Authority to take step in accordance with law. It is necessary to state that

¶67

respondent-Authorities shall also to initiate action against the concerned officer who has failed to take steps under

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:35656 WP No. 14372 of 2023

¶70

Subsection (5) of Section 3G of National Highways Act,

¶71

1956 as mandatorily required thereunder.

¶72

Though the petitioner has already given representation as per Annexure-G to avoid any further confusion, petitioner shall file a fresh representation with all supporting documents inrespect of his entitlement before the respondent No.2-SLAO within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. Thereafter the respondent No.2-SLAO shall pay the balance amount in terms of the award produced at Annexure-F within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶73

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed off.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

Sri. Krishnappa v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Krishnappa v. Union 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

M/S Ellis Fashion Exports Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramchandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishnappa S/O Basappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fashion Power Vs Bangalore Development Authority