Allowed

Sri S K Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2023WP/16578/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the petitioners' claim for enhanced compensation under Section 18(1) of the 1894 Act within six weeks. The Court held that even if the award was not a consent award, the petitioners are entitled to seek enhancement under the residuary limitation period.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Mandamus issued to respondent No.3 to refer Petitioners' claim for enhancement of compensation under Section 18(1) of the 1894 Act within six weeks.

Sri S K Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 16578 OF 2015 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.S.K.MANJUNATH, S/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶9

SRI.K.NATRAJ, S/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶10

SRI.K.SHIVANNA, S/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶11

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

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MIDDLE SCHOOL ROAD, LAKKAVALLLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577228.

¶13

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.R.RAJAGOPAL., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. H.N.BASAVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577201.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, TARIKERE SUB DIVISION, TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577201.

¶20

THE SUPERINTENDENTING ENGINEER, UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, NEAR GARAGE CAMP, B.R. PROJECT, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UPPER BHADRA PROJECT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, NEAR GARAGE CAMP, B.R.PROJECT, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶22

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, IRRIGATION CORPORATION LTD., K.R CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHADRA IRRIGATION CORPORATION LTD., UPPER BHADRA PROJECT (IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT) NEAR LAKSHMI NARAYANA TEMPLE, B.R. PROJECT, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶24

THE R.N.S. COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.14, NAVEEN COMPLEX, 7^TH FLOOR, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560003.

¶25

VISHVESHWARAIAH JALA NIGAM LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.146, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1;

¶28

SRI. K RAMACHANDRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5 & R9; NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 IS D/W V.C.O DATED 5.04.2023)

¶29

¶30

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.3.2014 OF THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-L AND ALSO QUASH THE AWARD AS PASSED BY THE R- 3 IN RELATED TO THE LANDS OF THE PETITIONERS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEX-M AND ETC.,

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The short grievance of the Petitioner-land owners is essentially against the award in question which purports to be a consent award when allegedly they had not consented to. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that once it is treated as ‘ consent award ’, it attains finality in the form of a contract by virtue of pacta sunt servanda and as a consequence, his clients would be deprived of the right to seek enhancement of compensation u/s 18(1) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He also makes an offshoot submission that once the absence of consent is demonstrated, it will be a case of no award and in no circumstance, such an award can be treated as a general award. Therefore, he seeks a fresh award being framed in terms of Right to Fair

¶35

¶36

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶37

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶38

Learned AGA appearing for the official

¶39

respondents, opposes the Petition contending that the award purports to be a consent award; at this length of time, an enquiry as to there being consent or its absence cannot be undertaken by the Writ Court; even in the absence of consent, the award partakes the character of a general award. He highlights the consequences of countenancing the submission of Petitioners’ counsel. He also submits that an award is an offer is true. However, he hastens to add that, such an offer is confined to determination of compensation and nothing beyond that.

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶41

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:

¶42

¶43

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶44

(a) Ordinarily, under the law relating to land

¶45

acquisition, awards are either general awards or consent awards. The latter category is one wherein all the persons interested in the land signify their consent to an award being made. In that event, it becomes a contract like thing crystallizing rights of the parties. Consent is confined to determination of compensation and not for passing of the award in other respects. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners that once there is no consent, it should be treated as no award at all, is difficult to countenance; the award sans consent partakes the character of a general award; the contention that an award is always treated as an offer and therefore, unless acceptance is signified, there is no award at all, again is too farfetched an argument. Where there is no acceptance or consent, it will take the character of a general award and the right to seek enhanced compensation avails to the land loser which otherwise he lacks by virtue of consent.

¶46

(b) It is relevant to refer to V.G.Ramachandran’s

¶47

‘Law on Land Acquisition and Compensation’, 8^th Edn,

¶48

¶49

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶50

Eastern Book Company, P 381, (2000), as to the apt

¶51

enunciation of law relating to consent awards:

¶52

“Award on agreement

¶53

Sub-section (2) which was introduced by the Amendment Act of 1984 provides for the making of an award by the Collector on the agreement of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. He can do so when he is satisfied that–…All persons interested who have appeared before him, and…have agreed in writing as to the area, the compensation and apportionment of compensation, he may make an award in terms of the agreement without making further inquiries… Where the owner of the land gives his consent to the determination of compensation in terms of Section 11(2), no approval of any other authority is necessary. Order determining compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer is an award in terms of Section 11 of the Act… the Collector is required to be satisfied that all the persons interested have agreed in writing. This satisfaction must be based on objective reasons. So at that stage too an inquiry is necessary for the assurance that no person interested has been left out. Sub-section (3) provides that the determination of the compensation under subsection (2) on agreement shall not affect the determination of compensation for other lands.”

¶54

Learned counsel for the Petitioners is more than justified in contending that in the absence of demonstrable evidence, an award cannot be treated as a consent award and ordinarily, it is for the authorities to prove the

¶55

¶56

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶57

consent/agreement. No material is placed on record to prima facie show that the Petitioners had given their consent for the determination of compensation, as has been done in the subject award. There is a portion of land in respect of which consent is given for making of the award and not for the subject lands. Added, there is intradepartmental correspondence to the effect that the award is not a consent award and therefore, there is need for rectification. However, all this has fallen on the deaf years of the authorities that be.

¶58

(c) The above having been said, there is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that in the absence of consent, even if the award is treated as general award, his client should be permitted to seek reference u/s 18(1) of the 1894 Act inasmuch as right to compensation is a secondary right to property and therefore, such a right necessarily includes the right to seek enhanced compensation consistent with the guarantee to the property rights enacted u/a 300A of

¶59

¶60

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶61

the Constitution. Though award is stated to have been passed way back in the year 2011, no material is placed on record to show that the award notice was sent to the Petitioners and therefore, their claim for reference u/s 18(1) of the 1894 Act is time barred. Even the special limitation prescribed under sub-section (2)(b) of section 18 would not foreclose Petitioners’ right to seek reference for the simple reason that it is not a simple case of no award notice was sent but one wherein notice would not be sent because of the award being treated as consent award. Such cases fall under the residuary provision i.e., Article 137 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. In more or less, a similar fact situation, this court has taken that view in W.P.No.31908/2017 (LA-RES), between N. KRISHNAMURTHY and STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS , disposed off on 20.03.2023. Even if the award is of the year 2011, the reference sought for in the year 2012, apparently is well within three years prescribed under the residuary Article. This apart, even the issue as to whether the award was made with consent can also be

¶62

¶63

WP No. 16578 of 2015

¶64

adjudicated upon by the Reference Court and for that, the

¶65

said contention needs to be kept open.

¶66

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to respondent No.3-Spl. Land Acquisition Officer to refer Petitioners’ claim for enhancement of compensation u/s 18(1) of the 1894 Act within six weeks and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. Delay in complying the writ may result into levy of a cost of Rs.1,000/- per day personally payable by the said official.

¶67

The Reference Court shall notify & hear all the stakeholders including the respondent Nos.6 to 8 to whom the notice has been here dispensed with.

¶68

Costs made easy.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

cbc

Sri S K Manjunath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S K Manjunath v. the 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 N Lakshmipathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Razia Begum Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Tulunadu Finance and Vs Nil

M/S Mukunda Industrial Finance Ltd., (in Liqn.) Vs Nil

M/S W S Telesystems Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil