Allowed

Sri. Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2023WP/14612/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by unauthorized land occupants before the Karnataka High Court seeking release of ex gratia compensation and benefits under Deputy Commissioner proceedings. The court directed KIADB to release funds and ensured employment for occupants, with penalties for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Release ex gratia compensation within six months with 2% penal interest penalty if delayed, and employment of one family member.occupants. If company fails to employ, occupants can retake possession.

Sri. Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 14612 OF 2021 (LA-KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O DODDAPILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶10

SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED

¶11

SRI. ANJINAPPA, S/O MOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

¶12

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

2(A) SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA, W/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶14

2(B) SHRI.ASHWATH, S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶15

2(C) SHRI. A MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶16

2(D) SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O MUNIRAJAPPA, D/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶17

OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶20

2(E) SMT. ASHWATHAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATAPPA, D/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶21

THE PETITIONERS NO.2(A) TO 2(E) ARE RESIDING AT APPASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 133.

¶22

2(F) SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI., W/O LATE GOVINDA GOWDA,

¶23

D/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAWANATHA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR – 563 133.

¶24

SMT. KRISHNAMMA

¶25

W/O GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶26

SMT. SARASAMMA W/O MUNIVENKATARAMANPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶27

PETITIONERS NO.1, 3 AND 4

¶28

ARE RESIDENTS OF APPASANDRA VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR 563 133.

¶29

…PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI. G A SRIKANTE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶35

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (KIADB), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 49, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOORS, ‘EAST WING’, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶36

THE SPECIAL LAO,

¶37

KIADB, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶38

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶39

THE COMMITTEE OF REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS, BY IT SECRETARY, THE TAHASILDAR, KOLAR 563 101.

¶40

THE TAHASILDAR,

¶41

KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 133.

¶42

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE CEREBRA COMPANY, ADDRESS AND INFORMATION OF THE COMPANY IS NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE., AGA FOR R1 & R4 TO R6; SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. H N NARENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶44

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R1 DATED 7.8.2006 ANNEXURE-C AND FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R1 DATED 25.08.2007 ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶45

¶46

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶47

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

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The essential grievance of the Petitioners who claim to be unauthorized occupants of the land now acquired u/s 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, for the KIADB is that they have not been paid ex gratia in terms of Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings dated 22.7.2020 drawn in the presence of local MLA, Allottee Company & themselves. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that although the land in acquisition has been allotted to the 7^th Respondent-Company, which has already remitted the compensation, the same ought to have been released in favour of his clients in terms of the said order.

¶50

Learned AGA appears for the official

¶51

respondents; 6^th Respondent-Tahasildar is personally present before the Court pursuant to direction dated 9.3.2023; the respondent Nos.2 & 3, are represented by

¶52

¶53

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶54

their Panel Counsel. The beneficiary company which happens to be the 7^th respondent is also represented by its counsel.

¶55

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶56

Respondents authenticates the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner that eventually culminated into the order dated 22.7.2020 referred to above. He submits that a copy of the Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings was forwarded to the respondent-KIADB on the very next day i.e., 23.7.2020 vide Annexure-F. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the KIADB as also the Panel Counsel appearing for the respondent-Company submit that the prayer of the Petitioners for invalidation of the acquisition in question cannot be countenanced, although Petitioners may be justified in seeking the benefit in terms of Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings to which they too were parties.

¶57

¶58

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶59

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶60

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶61

(a) Petitioners were the unauthorized occupants of the subject land for quite a long period and that they had sought for regularization of their unauthorized occupancy by filing applications in Form 53 u/s 94B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is not much in dispute. The same is otherwise also demonstrated by the material placed on record. The jurisdictional Tahasildar vide Report dated 15.7.2016 at Annexure-G has mentioned that the claim of Petitioners for regularization/grant was recommended on 23.6.2016 itself. Learned AGA is also justified in telling the court that despite such a recommendation, the application for regularization came to be rejected vide order dated 27.9.2019. Be that as it may.

¶62

¶63

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶64

(b) The proceedings were unanimously drawn under the headship of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner on 22.7.2020, the operative portion of which read as under:

¶65

“F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹, f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆÃ¯ÁgÀ f¯Éè, gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÉÆÃ¯ÁgÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ PÉëÃvÀæ gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ZÀað¹ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ, ¤tð¬Ä¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

¶66

¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ.30.00 ®PÀë JPïìUÉæÃ¶AiÀiÁ(zÀAiÀiÁvÀäPÀ) ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉÆÃ¯ÁgÀ f¯Éè gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉLJr© UÉ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶67

¸ÉgÉ¨Áæ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄªÀjAzÀ ¨sÀÆ«Ä PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ gÉÊvÀjUÉ GzÉÆåÃUÀ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 2.00 ®PÀë ¥Àæw gÉÊvÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä M¦àgÀÄªÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶68

¨É¼É E®èzÉÃ PÀqÉ EgÀÄªÀ eÁUÀzÀ°è £Á¼É¬ÄAzÀ¯É PÁA¥ËAqï ºÁQPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÁð£ÀÄªÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wÃªÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.”

¶69

The unanimous proceeding to which the unauthorized occupants of the land, the company which is the beneficiary of acquisition and the Deputy Commissioner representing the government participated, have resulted into a justiciable instrument of law from which the rights for the grant of ex gratia & other benefits would accrue in favour of the Petitioners.

¶70

¶71

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶72

¶73

between SIDDAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS , disposed off vide judgment dated 13.3.2020 (Kalaburagi Bench), having considered more or less similar fact matrix & having referred to Halsbury’s Laws of England, IV Edition, Vol. 8(1) at paragraph 297, had accorded grant of relief to the litigants similarly circumstanced qua the Petitioners herein. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶74

“In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of mandamus issues to the respondent No.3 – SLAO of KIADB to pay to the petitioner interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.19,50,000/computed from the date three years immediately anterior to the filing of writ petition, within eight weeks; the respondent No.3-SLAO of KIADB is directed to recover the said amount from the respondent No.4-Industry forthwith, by taking the coercive actions permissible in law, including the cancellation of allotment of the land in question or any part thereof.”

¶75

¶76

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶77

Much deliberation in this regard having been made in the

¶78

decision cited supra, repetition thereof is not warranted.

¶79

(d) Learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondentKIADB submits that the 7^th respondent beneficiary company has already credited allotment price in respect of the land taken. If that be so, there should be absolutely no impediment for releasing the amount to the Petitioners in terms of the aforesaid Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings dated 22.7.2020. There is absolutely no reason or rhyme for withholding the said amount despite there being such proceedings. The words used in the said proceedings such as ‘ ex gratia’, etc., need not be given popular meanings going by the intent & content of the said proceedings.

¶80

(e) The Memo fairly filed by Petitioners reads as under:

¶81

“The Petitioner undertake before this Hon’ble Court to deliver possession of land to the Respondent No.7 and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board [KIADB] on 30/03/2023.

¶82

The Petitioner submits that, as per the order of this Hon’ble High Court, if the Respondent No.7 Company and KIADB failed to comply with the order dated 22/07/2020, the Petitioners will

¶83

10 -

¶84

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶85

take back the possession of their lands for their livelihood in the interest of Justice and Equity.”

¶86

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent-KIADB & its Spl. Land Acquisition Officer to release the amount as stipulated in the Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings dated 22.7.2020 referred to supra, within six months failing which the delay would attract a penal interest of 2% per mensem payable by the concerned officials of the KIADB personally.

¶87

The KIADB shall also ensure that in terms of the Deputy Commissioner’s proceedings dated 22.7.2020, the allottee company shall employ at least one member of the family of the petitioners in an appropriate position, of course subject to fulfilling the minimum requirements of qualification for the recruitment within six weeks, if already not done. If the respondent-company fails to issue appointment order, the company shall pay a sum of

¶88

11 -

¶89

WP No. 14612 of 2021

¶90

Rs.12,000/- per month to each of the Petitioners on or

¶91

before 5^th of every calendar month.

¶92

It is open to the respondent-KIADB to initiate proceedings for the cancellation of allotment of land should the respondent-company fail to comply with the direction mentioned herein.

¶93

In the event, the 7^th respondent fails to comply with the obligation to employ one of the members of the family of the Petitioners, it is open to the Petitioners to straight away take the possession of that portion of the land which were in their occupation on the strength of this order itself.

¶94

Costs reluctantly made easy.

¶95

Sd/JUDGE

¶96

cbc

Sri. Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muniyappa v. State of Karnataka

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. M. Govindaraju Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri K v Srinivas Vs Smt Geetha Mohan

Sri S Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Kailash Roofing Solutions Private Limited. Vs Manakisa Limited

Sri Syed Farooq Vs the State of Karnataka

C. H. Venkataraju Vs State of Karnataka