Petitioner sought mandamus for fresh compensation awards under the 2013 Act regarding land acquired by agreement under the 1966 Act. Court dismissed petition noting the acquisition was complete, compensation paid via contract, and no exception applied to shift to the 2013 regime.
Writ petition dismissed as it was devoid of merits.
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. 22842 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 22842 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
IQBAL AHMED, SON OF LATE MR M REHMAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.E-9, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560 029.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. N S SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
WP No. 22842 of 2022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2 AND 3 TO PASS FRESH AWARDS AND PAY COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER,AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,REHABILITATING AND RESETTLEMENT ACT,2013 WITH INTEREST SOLATIUM AND OTHER STATUTORY BENEFITS UNTIL DATE OF PAYMENT, TO THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-A COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 07.08.2006,ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 25.09.2008,AND ANNEXURE-J COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12.01.2021).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, having given up his land in acquisition
process by agreement under the provisions of Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the Respondent No.2 - KIADB 2 & Respondent No. 3 - the SLAO of KIADB to pass fresh
WP No. 22842 of 2022
awards and to pay compensation “ as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with interest, solatium and other statutory benefits.
WP No. 22842 of 2022
that the acquisition in question has been accomplished by Section 29(2) Agreement dated 12.01.2021 whereunder admittedly Petitioner has been paid the compensation, solatium, interest, additional market value, in terms of quantified in a sum of Rs.4.96 Crore. They also bank upon the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNTAKA vs. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA, (2005) 4 SCC 264, for seeking dismissal of the Petition.
and having perused the Petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
a) The process of acquisition that commenced with
the Preliminary Notification dated 07.08.2006 issued under section 28(1), followed by the Final Notification dated 25.09.2008, has been accomplished by issuance of Possession Delivery Notice issued under Section 28(6) of the 1966 Act, whereunder the Scheme of acquisition is in bit variance with that of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
WP No. 22842 of 2022
whole process of acquisition is fructified, if at all anything was left over by the Agreement dated 12.01.2021 concluded under the provisions of Section 29(2), a copy whereof is produced by the Petitioner himself at AnnexureJ. Added, the Petitioner has admittedly received the agreed compensation, solatium, interest & additional amounts all quantified in a sum of Rs.4.96 crore. That being the position, the direction for passing of the award cannot be sought for. This view gains support from the decision of the Apex Court in SANGAPPA supra vide paragraphs 12, 13 & 14 therein.
b) It is relevant to reproduce certain paragraphs of
the subject Agreement to show the unconscionability of Petitioner’s claim:
“WHEREFORE Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 provides that where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the Government and the person(s) to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.
WP No. 22842 of 2022
WHEREFORE, the parties herein have mutually agreed on the compensation of amount of Rs.62,00,000/- per acre of land, which amount is inclusive of cost of land solatium, interest, additional market value etc., and the owner has agreed to executed an indemnity bond appended hereto.
NOW THIS INDENTURE WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:-
1. The owner has received amount of Rs.4,96,00,000/2. Calculated at the agreed rate of Rs.62,00,000/-
3. The rate of Rs.62,00,000/- per acre of land is inclusive of the land. Solatium interests, additional market value etc., The owner is not entitled to anything on and above the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,96,00,000/-
4. The payment of the compensation of the owner for the schedule property is towards full and final settlement. The owner is not entitled to seek the reference for enhancement of the compensation Under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 either for the land or for the structures standing there on or any benefit arising from the schedule property.
5. If it is found, that the owner is not entitled to receive the compensation, amount he shall refund the compensation amount to the Government with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the receipt of
WP No. 22842 of 2022
the compensation amount till the date of its refund. He is also liable to keep the Government indemnified for the loss, injury damages or any cost suffered by the Government an account of the payment of compensation amount to him.
6. Without prejudice to any other remedies for the enforcement of any refund or indemnity, the Government may recover any sum due under this agreement as arrears of land revenue.
7. There is no duress, force or coercion for the parties to enter into this agreement of their own volition.
In witness whereof the parties have set their hands the day and year for above written.”
This apart, the Petitioner has executed an Affidavit dated 31.01.2021 as well. The case of the Petitioner militates against century old maxim pacta sunt servanda which literally means that one should abide by what is agreed upon.
c) The submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Section 29(2) Agreement is void and
WP No. 22842 of 2022
therefore, it does not come in the way of a direction being issued for passing of the award under the 2013 Act is too farfetched an argument. Where the acquisition is otherwise under the provisions of 1894 Act, the matter of the kind has to stand miles away from the precincts of 2013 Act, subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the Petitioner does not fit.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being thoroughly devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is.
Coats reluctantly made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
BSV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner can seek fresh awards under the 2013 Act after acquiring land by agreement under Section 29(2) of the 1966 Act where compensation was already paid.
Whether the agreement devoid of duress binds the petitioner to the settled compensation amount excluding further claims.
Whether the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the 2013 Act apply to acquisitions completed under the 1966 Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
STATE OF KARNTAKA VS. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPARelied on¶32
(2005) 4 SCC 264 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Iqbal Ahmed
State of Karnataka, Commerce and Industries Department
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
