The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition compensation. The court held that the petitioner, being a businessman and an elderly person who had accepted the award amount and acknowledged receipt without any reservation or objection, could not subsequently claim arbitrariness or demand re-determination.
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. 43719 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 43719 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
C N SRINIVASA RAO, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
BOTH R/AT NO.198-D, 7TH D MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011. AMENDED V.C.O DATED 19.09.2019
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. V V GUNJAL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
WP No. 43719 of 2014
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. N N HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A] DECLARE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, UNJUST AND UNFAIR AND SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE VIDE ANNEX-J DTD.2.1.2012. B] AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The essential grievance of the Petitioner is as to the payment of lower amount of compensation for the land he lost in the KIADB acquisition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that his client being a nonagenarian, inadvertently accepted the award amount in a sum of Rs.4,76,46,008/- excluding the tax component of Rs.52,94,001/- and therefore, the award should be set at
naught to re-determine the same at a much higher value.
Compensation. He draws attention of the Court to several paragraphs of One Man Committee Report on the basis of which the subject determination was made, wrongly in the opinion of the counsel.
appearance through its AGA; the KIADB has entered its appearance through its Senior Panel Counsel and BMRCL is represented by its Senior Panel Advocate. They have filed the Statement of Objections opposing the Petition. All they make submission in justification of what has been paid as the compensation and ask the Court to dismiss the Petition on certain grounds which will be discussed in due course.
(a) Land of the Petitioner has been acquired under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 and payment of compensation in
WP No. 43719 of 2014
terms of the award in a sum mentioned hereinabove has
been made to him, is not in dispute. Petitioner has accepted the offer of award amount and acknowledged the receipt thereof, is vouched by records. In fact, that is not disputed at all. Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is in the nature of an offer and the land loser has an option either to accept it unconditionally or with reservation so that he can seek higher compensation than awarded by seeking reference u/s 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under such other law. Once the award amount has been accepted without raising even a little finger, it is not open to the awardee to lay a challenge to the determination of the award subject to all just exceptions into which argued case of the Petitioner does not fit.
(b) The vehement submission of learned counsel for
the Petitioner that his client being a 92 year old person, could not ascertain the pit falls in the determination of the award amount by way of compensation and therefore, he is entitled to seek re-determination thereof, is bit difficult
to countenance. May be that the Petitioner is as aged as is stated. He is admittedly a businessman and no where in the petition or in the correspondence with the Respondents, he has mentioned anything about his disability that came in the way of ascertaining the argued infirmities in determining the compensation. Had he been a peasant or a labourer, such a contention could have been arguably countenanced, is beside the point.
(c) The learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents have filed a wealth of material justifying rejection of the claim. In the BMRCL’s Statement of Objections dated 22.03.2016, Annexure-R1 happens to be the acknowledgement given by the Petitioner himself about the receipt of compensation after excluding the income tax component. No reservation is mentioned in that. Annexure-R3 happens to be the agreement drawn on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-. It mentions about the property, acquisition and specifically about the compensation amount fixed at Rs.4,76,46,008/-. Each of the pages is signed both by the Petitioner and the Special
WP No. 43719 of 2014
Land Acquisition Officer. There is not even a whisper about any objection or reservation as to the determination of the amount or the principles on which such determination is made. Annexure-R4 is another non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/- which specifically mentions about the acceptance of the compensation specified in the very same sum. The first condition stipulated therein reads: “1. £Á£ÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÉÆÃj ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÁªÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ¢gÀ®Ä M¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”
The argument of Petitioner’s counsel that it only bars his client from knocking at the doors of Civil Court by filing a suit and not the presentation of the Writ Petition, is too farfetched. Such stipulations cannot be read as Euclid’s theorem. While construing the conditions of the kind, common sense cannot be kept in cold storage, to say the least. Thus, once the right to litigate over the determination of compensation is given up, a land owner cannot turn around and contend to the contrary.
(d) The vehement submission of learned counsel for
the Petitioner that the said determination of compensation has been done to the disadvantage of his client by acting
WP No. 43719 of 2014
upon a One Man Committee Report and that the Committee had done its work without notice to his client and therefore, re-determination of compensation is warranted, cannot be agreed to. A perusal of the Committee Report does not show any infirmity in working out the parameters for determining the compensation. It is not that the Committee Report has been straight away accepted by the SLAO while framing the award, as a gospel truth. The same has been duly examined and only thereafter, the determination of compensation has been done keeping in view all the parameters prescribed by law. The argument of violation of principles of natural justice is more often made than established by cogent evidentiary material. Not only the Petitioner should say that he was not heard in the matter, but demonstrate that such a hearing would have changed the outcome vide S.L.KAPOOR vs. JAGMOHAN , AIR 1981 SC 136. The violation of principles of natural justice cannot be ritualistically chanted as mantra, our system having
WP No. 43719 of 2014
moved from farm to substance after the Constitution has
been enacted.
In the above circumstances, Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed & accordingly, it
is, costs having been reluctantly made easy.
Sd/JUDGE
cbc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a land owner who accepted the award amount without reservation can subsequently challenge the compensation in a writ petition on grounds of age or lack of notice.
Whether the determination of compensation under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, is arbitrary and illegal given the petitioner's age and business status.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.L. Kapoor vs. JagmohanReferred¶53
S.L.KAPOOR vs. JAGMOHAN, AIR 1981 SC 136 · Who else cites this
C N Srinivasa Rao (Since Dead by his LRS)
State of Karnataka
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
