Allowed

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Metro) v. the Recovery Officer-Ii

Karnataka HC11 Jan 2023WP/2963/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed a show cause notice issued by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Court held the notice was unsustainable as the petitioner was not a party to the Tribunal proceedings, and the Land Acquisition Officer correctly exercised statutory powers to refer a disputed claim to the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the writ of Certiorari was issued; the show cause notice dated 26.03.2015 was quashed.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.2963 OF 2018 (GM-DRT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (METRO), KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS, DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ARVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE RECOVERY OFFICER II, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JEEVAN MANGAL BUILDINGS, NO.4, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 025.

¶12

STATE BANK OF MYSORE PRESENTLY STATE BANK OF INDIA, SARC BRANCH, I FLOOR, NO.2, LADY CURZON ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(R1 & R2 ARE SERVED)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE

¶15

¶16

RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.363/2002-DCP 2956, DATED 29.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar., learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner has appeared in person.

¶21

The facts in brief are stated as under:

¶22

The State of Karnataka issued a preliminary notification on 30.08.2013 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act'), proposing to acquire various properties for the Metro Rail Project in and around Nayandahalli and other villages. In pursuance of the aforesaid preliminary notification, a final notification under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued on 29.12.2014. As things stood thus, the Recovery Officer-II, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru - first respondent sent a communication on 26.03.2015 intimating the petitioner to withhold the compensation

¶23

¶24

amount in respect of the property bearing Khata No.39-6-9/1, a portion of the property in Survey No.30 of Nayandahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶25

On 13.04.2015, one Sri.Balaji Babu, claiming to be the auction purchaser of the property in question, filed objections and brought to the notice of the petitioner that the writ petition is pending and so also rival claimants have filed a claim petition. He objected to the release of the compensation amount. Hence, requested to refer the matter to the Civil Court.

¶26

It is stated that on 03.09.2015, the BMRCL sent a package of compensation as an offer, payable in respect of the property in question and requested to refer the matter to the Civil Court because of the dispute.

¶27

In view of the dispute, the petitioner treated the same as the disputed one and passed an award and referred the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication. On

¶28

¶29

21.04.2016, the petitioner deposited the entire compensation amount in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner deposited the entire compensation in the City Civil Court. The case is registered as LAC No.58/2016. At this juncture, the first respondent - Debt Recovery Tribunal issued a show-cause notice intimating the petitioner as to why a warrant of arrest should not be issued since the petitioner has violated the communication dated 26.03.2015. It is this show-cause notice which is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.

¶30

Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions.

¶31

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the writ papers and also annexures with utmost care.

¶32

¶33

The principal ground on which this Court is asked to quash the show cause notice is that the petitioner has adhered to the law in discharging the statutory duty. Hence, the issue of show cause notice asking the petitioner why an arrest warrant should not be issued is wholly unsustainable.

¶34

There is no dispute that a preliminary and final notification came to be issued for the acquisition of various properties for the Metro Rail Project. Several properties were also acquired in and around Nayandahalli and other villages. Pursuant to the acquisition, the BMRCL has sent a package of compensation as an offer, payable in respect of the property in question. There were several objections to the release of the amount. Hence, the petitioner deemed it appropriate and treated the same as disputed one and referred the matter to the Civil Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶35

Learned counsel Sri.P.V.Chandrashekar., in presenting his arguments, vehemently contended that the

¶36

¶37

petitioner has deposited the award amount in the jurisdictional Civil Court as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 under Sections 30 & 31 of the Act. He argued that the petitioner has acted strictly and adhered to the law.

¶38

Counsel also strenuously urged that the Tribunal has no power to issue show-cause notice. He drew the attention of the Court to the show-cause notice which is at Annexure-J.

¶39

I have perused Annexure-J. It is dated 29.12.2017. It is signed by one M.Ramji, Recovery Officer-II DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I. It is addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB Metro Division, Aravind Bhavan, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore - 560 001. In the notice, it is stated that the petitioner has violated the order of the Tribunal and he has deposited the amount in the City Civil Court at Bangalore (CCH No.17) in the file LAC No.58/2016.

¶40

¶41

Suffice it to note that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. In my view, the issue of show cause notice alleging that the petitioner has violated the order of the Tribunal is untenable and the same was uncalled for. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is a public servant and he has exercised statutory power and has acted in accordance with the law.

¶42

I have no hesitation in saying that the Tribunal has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the show cause notice issued by the officer of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law.

¶43

To conclude, I can say only this much, the officer has misdirected himself in issuing the show-cause notice. The result is that the writ petition will be allowed. The writ of Certiorari is ordered. The notice dated 26.03.2015 in O.A.No.363/2002 - DCP No.2956 vide Annexure-D is quashed.

¶44

¶45

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

bnv

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Metro) v. the Recovery Officer-Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Metro) v. the Recovery Officer-Ii

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

Sri a Vykunta Prabhu Vs Managing Director

Shruthi R Vs Dr R Shreenivas

M N Tulujaram Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh Babu Amin Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sunday Solar Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sayeed Pasha Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakfs