Allowed

M/S Indus Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/38104/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the National Highways Act provision excluding Land Acquisition Act benefits. Following the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, the Court directedRespondents pay solatium calculated from the land's possession date.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to compute solatium from the date of taking actual possession and pay it with statutory interest within three months.

M/S Indus Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 38104 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 38104 OF 2013 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S INDUS TECH PARK PVT LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.5-6, SUNDAR MANSION, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 022. REPRESENTED BY EXECTUVIE DIRECTOR SRI. UDIT KUMAR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S V BHAT .,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, HYDARABAD-BANGALORE ROAD, (NATIONAL HIGHWAY-7), NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, NO.678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA EXTENSION, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶15

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, NO.678/3, NEERUBHAVI KEMPANNA EXTENSION, HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560 024. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH., PANEL ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 38104 of 2013

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO HOLD THAT SECTION 3-A OF SECTION 3-1 OF AMENDED ACT NO.16 OF 1997 OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT 1956 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 3-A[1] OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACT 1956 DATED 9.12.2009 PUBLISHED IN THE KANNADA PRABHA - KANNADA NEWSPAPER FROM BENGALURU ON 7.1.2010 VIDE ANN-K AND THE FINAL NOTIFICATION / DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 3-D OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACT 1956 DATED 30.10.2010 VIDE ANN-L AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

¶24

assailing the provisions of Section 3-A to 3-I of the National Highways Act, 1956, as amended, which inter alia exclude application of the provisions of erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 inter alia for the purpose of awarding solatium and interest. Petitioner has made the alternative

¶25

prayer with the following text:

¶26

“ Alternatively and in the event of this Hon’ble Court inclined to grant the reliefs at (i) & (ii) above, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay compensation to the Petitioner in respect of the portion of the schedule property in Sy.No.115 of Kannamangala Village, at the rate prevailing as on 4^th week of June, 2013.”

¶27

¶28

WP No. 38104 of 2013

¶29

After service of notice, the Respondents having

¶30

entered appearance through their Senior Panel Counsel, oppose the Petition inter alia contending that without the Union of India as a party, the question of constitutionality of the provisions cannot be gone into; the decision of the learned single judge of this Court in LALITA vs. UNION OF INDIA , AIR 2003 KAR 165, which has struck down Section 3-J of the 1894 Act would now pale into insignificance since W.A.Nos.6115-6117/2002 between UNION OF INDIA vs. LALITHA filed against the same has been disposed off v ide judgment dated 15.10.2019 in terms of Apex Court decision in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER vs. TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS , AIR 2019 SC 4689 . She also seeks deferment of hearing of this case contending that with effect from which date the interest is to be reckoned is res sub judis

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶32

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is

¶33

¶34

WP No. 38104 of 2013

¶35

inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as

¶36

under and for the following reasons:

¶37

(a) There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that now in view of the Division Bench decision made in terms of Apex Court decision supra , the 1^st prayer for quashment of the provisions of the 1894 Act has become infructuous and therefore, the alternate prayer is to be granted to the extent of awarding solatium and other related benefits like interest. The Division Bench following UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER vs. TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS, AIR 2019 SC 4689, has said as under:

¶38

“5. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the controversy in the instant appeals are squarely covered by an order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019 namely Union of India and another vs. Tarsem Singh and others.”

¶39

(b) In view of the above declaration of law by the

¶40

Apex Court in terms of which the Division Bench also has

¶41

¶42

WP No. 38104 of 2013

¶43

disposed off the Writ Appeal, petitioner is entitled to award of solatium as if the acquisition has been made under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This solatium has to be computed with effect from the date the possession of property has been taken which has been the consistent view of the courts all through.

¶44

(c) The contention of the Panel counsel for the Respondent that the hearing of the case be deferred till after the Apex Court clarifies the reckoning date for computation of solatium and interest cannot be agreed with since there is no stay by the Apex Court unlike there was one when the invocability of Section 24(2) of THE Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was being debated.

¶45

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer No.3 and the Respondents are directed to compute the solatium part of the compensation reckoned from the date of taking actual possession of the subject

¶46

¶47

WP No. 38104 of 2013

¶48

land and pay it to the Petitioner with statutory rate of

¶49

interest, within a period of three months, if he establishes

¶50

his credentials in accordance with law.

¶51

Costs made easy.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Cbc/Bsv

M/S Indus Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Indus Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

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. a Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

M S Saileela Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mukundaiah C v Vs the State of Karnataka

C N Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Rajashekar Vs Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (Bmrcl)

Smt.Tara N Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority