High Court Bench declined to entertain a writ petition seeking apportionment of compensation post-award under Sections 23 and 63 of the 2013 Act, dismissed the petition, and reserved liberty for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court.
Petition dismissed; liberty to approach civil court reserved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP No. 1450 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 1450 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NIDAVANDA, SOMAPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563 111.
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 1450 of 2023
PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO.104, KUMBARA BEEDHI, DABASPET, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-563 111.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAYARAJ D S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 1450 of 2023
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. C RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 3 TO RELEASE/DISBURSE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS BY VIRTUE OF ACQUIRING THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND LEGAL NOTICES ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURES-D, E AND G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners whose name does not figure in the award concerning the subject land are complaining knocking at the doors of Writ Court as to non-consideration of their representation dated 02.01.2023 followed by Legal Notice dated 11.01.2023 wherein they essentially seek apportionment of the compensation amount.
WP No. 1450 of 2023
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners takes the
Court through the provisions of Sections 23, 63 & 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to substantiate his version that such a claim needs to be entertained by the award passing authority even in the post-award scenario. He places reliance upon two decisions of Coordinate Benches, namely paragraph 27, SADASHIVAIAH & OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, ILR 2003 KAR 5088 and an unreported decision in W.P.No.47161/2018 dated 15.04.2009 between SMT. YESHODA VERAMAYANNA vs KIADB & OTHERS.
WP No. 1450 of 2023
hold to the contrary. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ petition.
and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents. The heavy reliance upon Section 23 of the 2013 Act made by the Petitioners does not come to their aid inasmuch as Section 23 presupposes the objections filed in the preaward scenario which is not the case here. The other Sections are also structured on a similar inarticulate of Section 23 of 2013 Act.
for the petitioners that Section 63 bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court and therefore, Writ Court is the only forum to seek redressal of citizens grievance, is a bit difficult to countenance. In almost an identical fact matrix contention of similar kind having been examined by the Apex Court in
WP No. 1450 of 2023
DHULABAI & OTHERS vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS, AIR 1969 SC 78 , para 77, it has been held that the scope of Section 9 of CPC being very wide, exclusion of Civil Court’s jurisdiction cannot be readily inferred even when the statute makes an exclusionary clause.
In view of the above this Writ Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioners to approach the civil Court for the redressal of their grievance in accordance with law and in that connection, all contentions are kept open.
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
BSV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim for apportionment of compensation post-award can be entertained by the Land Acquisition Officer under the 2013 Act.
Whether the exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 63 of the 2013 Act bars the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Whether respondents are entitled to dismissal of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Siddagangamma
Sri. Manjappa V
Sri Siddalingappa
Sri Parashivaiah
Smt Siddagamma D/o Sri Siddaiah
The State of Karnataka
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
