Disposed

Deepak Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023WP/4334/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions for payment of land acquisition compensation after a history of multiple disputed awards. The High Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to determine compensation within eight weeks, considering land nature and time elapsed, while forbidding reference to prior awards.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State to ensure the SLAO determines compensation within eight weeks from 30.10.2023, considering land nature and time elapsed, without reference to previous awards.

Deepak Anand Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4334 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DEEPAK ANAND

¶9

S/O SRI B M ANAND, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶10

VIVEK ANAND

¶11

S/O SRI B M ANAND, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT APARTMENT NO.3, SUNNINGDALE HOUSE, NO.22/8, VITTAL MALYA ROA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. S V BHAT.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, MULTI-STORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 14/3, 2ND FLOOR,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶20

RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILIDNG, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶21

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2 KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, "SHANTHI GRUHA", BHARATH SCOUTS AND GUIDES BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. LAGALI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO FORTHWITH PAY THE AMOUNT UNDER THE AWARD BEARING NO.VBUSWAA-2/2344/22-23 DATED 27.07.2022 AT ANNEXURE- E.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the respondent No.3-SLAO to pay the compensation amount in terms of the awards dated 27.07.2022 produced at Annexure-E to writ petition. Petitioner had approached this Court on several

¶28

occasion, the first of such was in W.P.No.11483/2008 wherein,

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶30

while allowing the said writ petition the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the order dated 08.01.2010 with the following direction:

¶31

"5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners have to produce their deeds in respect of the land in question before the respondent No.2 and further establish that the said land has been acquired for the purpose of constructing trumpet interchange for connecting the Bangalore International Airport. The respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate award after taking into consideration the said documents in terms of the decision of this Court in W.P.No.18550/2007 and the connected matters disposed of on 21.02.2008. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs."

¶32

The said order has been passed by taking into consideration the earlier order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 21.02.2008 in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No. 18550/2007 clubbed with other writ petitions, wherein at para 14 and 15, it is observed as under:

¶33

"14. I am also of the considered view that while saving [not upholding] the acquisition proceedings in question, the petitioners are to be given extra or additional compensation. Awarding any fixed amount as damages or additional compensation would be a stupendous task. It calls for lot of guess work; but no amount of guess work may prove

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶35

to be objective. I therefore decline to grant any fixed amount towards damages or additional compensation.

¶36

"15. In the present case, the preliminary notifications are issued on 06.04.2004. The writ petitions are filed in October and November 2007. The first petition is presented on 29.10.2007. I find it safe and deem it just to direct the respondent Land Acquisition Officer to determine the market value as on 29.10.2007 not as on 06.04.2004, as far as the petitioners' lands are concerned."

¶37

Pursuant to the aforesaid Order, on 31.05.2013, the respondent No.3-SLAO has passed an award for a sum of Rs.75,32,281/-. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.54301/2013 and this Court while allowing the said writ petition by order dated 28.04.2014 produced at Annexure-C passed the following Order:

¶38

"Consequently, the petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an award afresh, after taking into consideration the material that was made available by the petitioners, though it is always in the discretion of the Land Acquisition Officer to pass an appropriate award.

¶39

The learned counsel for the respondents would also express an apprehension that by virtue of any such order of remand, it should not be constructed that the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶41

to as 'the New Act', for brevity) would be applicable. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the New Act would become applicable. It is only under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that there shall be a reconsideration of the case of the petitioners. With that observation the petition stands allowed in terms as above. Annexure-P stands quashed."

¶42

Thereafter the respondent No.3-SLAO had passed another general award for sum of Rs.12,32,58,869/- and apparently forwarded the same for approval to Deputy Commissioner on 22.05.2015. Since there was no approval accorded to the said general award, the respondent No.3-SLAO had passed yet another award dated 30.11.2015, this time for a sum of Rs. 3,90,47,706/-.

¶43

It is necessary to note that in the meanwhile the petitioner had filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.11768/2016 seeking implementation of the award dated 13.05.2015. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 20.07.2022 while disposing the said writ petition, directed the respondent No.3-SLAO to forward the award to the respondent No.1 for the approval at the earliest, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶44

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶45

It transpires that during the pendency of the petition, petitioner had made representation for passing the order on the basis of agreement. Respondent No.3-SLAO had apparently passed an office order at Annexure-E based on the agreement determining the compensation at a sum of Rs. 19,75,25,637/as per Annexure-E. Since the said office order at Annexure-E has not been given effect to, the petitioner is here before this Court.

¶46

Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent authorities at the outset submits that this is a case of absolute misuse of the power by the concerned officer that had led to the present stalement. That

¶47

the respondent-State is contemplating initiating the action against the respondent No.3-SLAO. He submits, in view of the aforesaid anomaly, as many as five different awards have been passed on various dates and of different quantum. Learned Advocate General further submits that given sometime respondent-authorities would consider the case of the petitioner, and pass appropriate awards in accordance with law.

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for the same, but he submits that such award to be passed within a time bound manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent-authority shall also take into consideration the nature of the land and the time spent from date of acquisition to till now for adequately compensating the petitioner.

¶50

Submission taken on record.

¶51

Though the events as noted hereinabove warrants much to be stated about the state of affairs at the hands of the said SLAO, this Court refrains from making any comment in view of the submission made by the learned Advocate General that the state is contemplating to initiate action against the said officer, such that any observation made, shall not cause any prejudice. In that view of the matter, petition is disposed off directing the respondent-State shall ensure that the Competent Officer namely SLAO shall determine the compensation payable to the petitioner taking into the consideration relevant provisions of law, nature of land, the length of time which is taken from the date of acquisition to till date and to adequately compensate the petitioner strictly in

¶52

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36638 WP No. 4334 of 2023

¶53

accordance with law and without reference to previous awards noted herein above.

¶54

Needless to state that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent-SLAO on 30.10.2023 at 11.00 a.m., without any further notice with all the relevant documents in support of his claim. The respondent-SLAO shall be at liberty to call for such other further particulars as required for effective determination of compensation. All the exercise shall be completed in passing the award within an outer limit of eight weeks from 30.10.2023.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Deepak Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Anand 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

Siddalingaiah @ Siddalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallesh Vs State of Karnataka

Ms H C Meena Rani Vs the Commissioner

Smt Gangalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri I M Omkar Vs State of Karnataka

K Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka