Allowed

K B Nagaraju v. the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023WP/50241/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a modified acquisition award issued by the SLAO, holding the officer functus officio after the initial award. The court directed payment of compensation based on the original award date with interest, noting the right to arbitration remains open for the state.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of modified award dated 31/01/2020; direction to pay compensation as per original award dated 28.11.2018 (minus amount paid) with 6% interest for delay.

K B Nagaraju Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 50241 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 50241 OF 2019 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K B NAGARAJU S/O. LATE BASAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT 4^TH MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, KANAKAPURA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR R.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.209, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 37, SRI BHYRAVESWARA COMPLEX, NEAR APPAJI NURSING HOME, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶15

PROJECT DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER (TECHNICAL) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, PROJECT IMPLEMENTING UNIT, BASAVANAPURA, RAMADEVARA PADA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 50241 of 2019

¶18

THE REGIONAL OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, 14^TH KILOMETER, NAGASANDRA VILLAGE, BANGALORE TUMKUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 073.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO DEPOSIT AND THEREAFTER DISBURSE THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE PETITIONER AS DETERMINED VIDE ANNX-A FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,34,27,828/- (RUPEES SIX CRORES THIRTY FOUR LAKHS TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT ONLY) WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 24 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF AWARD i.e. 28.11.2018 TILL REALIZATION AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the award dated 31.01.2020 made by the 1^st Respondent SLAO modifying the earlier award dated 28.11.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that, once the award is passed under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956, the SLAO becomes functus officio and therefore, the subsequent

¶25

¶26

WP No. 50241 of 2019

¶27

award is non est and as a consequence, the original award

¶28

needs to be implemented.

¶29

After service of notice, the Respondents having entered appearance through their panel counsel oppose the petition contending that, the earlier award was structured on a wrong premise as to the land being developed pursuant to conversion order, to the non- agricultural/residential purpose and the same having been discovered, the subsequent award has been passed by modifying the earlier one to accord with the fact position and thereby, enormous loss to the Exchequer has been prevented.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

¶31

(a) The land of the petitioner has been acquired under the provisions of the 1956 Act for a public purpose and the award was passed on 28.11.2018 for a

¶32

¶33

WP No. 50241 of 2019

¶34

compensation of Rs.6,34,27,828, are not in dispute. Once the award is passed, the authority becomes functus officio in the absence of any enabling provision in the said Act needs no elaboration, therefore, the modified award dated 31.01.2020 is non est, to say the least. The private lands are acquired by the State in exercise of power of eminent domain recognized under the provisions of Article 300A that constitutionally guarantees right to property. The payment of compensation is a pre-condition for the validity of acquisition vide K.T.PLANTATION & ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, (2011) 9 SCC 1. Once the award is passed, the land owner has got a justiciable right to compensation determined thereunder. Therefore petitioner is entitled to a direction for the payment of compensation as determined under the original award.

¶35

(b) The vehement contention of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents that authority to pass the award includes the power to modify the award to accord with the reality factors such as the extent of land,

¶36

¶37

WP No. 50241 of 2019

¶38

nature of land, etc. is bit difficult to countenance. In matters like this, Sec.21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

¶39

does not come to the aid. Admittedly, there is no provision in the 1956 Act which grants power of review. The Apex Court in KALABHARATI ADVERTISING vs. HEMANT VIMALNATH NARICHANIAHAS (2010) 9 SCC 437 held that in the absence of statutory enablement an authority cannot review its decision.

¶40

(c) The contention of learned panel counsel that, the earlier award was passed by treating the land in question as having been fully developed, well factually it is not so and therefore, upsetting the modified award would cost the Exchequer in heavy amounts, cannot be sustained because of the doctrine of functus officio. This apart, it is open to the respondents to put the original award in statutory arbitration as provided under Sec.3G(5) of the 1956 Act. An argument to the contrary would put the land owners to the vagaries of review and therefore, cannot be accepted. Since matter has been pending before this Court, the period of pendency is discountable while

¶41

¶42

WP No. 50241 of 2019

¶43

computing the period of limitation for invoking the arbitral provision of the Act.

¶44

In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of Certiorari issues quashing the modified award dated 31/01/2020; a Writ of Mandamus issues directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner the compensation amount in terms of original award dated 28.11.2018 minus the amount already paid, with additional interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the award for the delay brooked.

¶45

Nothing observed hereinabove shall come in the way of the Respondent–Authorities putting the award dated 28.11.2018 in arbitral challenge in accordance with law and in that regard, all contentions are kept open.

¶46

No costs.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Bsv

K B Nagaraju v. the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K B Nagaraju v. the Special Land Acquisiton 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 L Muniyappa Vs Government of Karnataka

M/S Reha Urban Infra Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

M/S Vijaya Commercial Credit Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil

Mr. M L Sadashivayya Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Maheshwari Sampath Vs the State of Karnataka

Puttalingaiah Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer