Dismissed

Jemcy Ponnappa C P v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2024WP/12603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a second compensation award under KIAD Act proceedings, contending the earlier award had made the authority functus officio. Holding that draft awards require State Government approval to become awards in law, the Court held the approved 07.07.2023 award alone was valid and dismissed the writ petition, leaving enhancement open.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jemcy Ponnappa C P Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12603 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)

¶5

BETWEEN :

¶6

JEMCY PONNAPPA C.P. S/O C.P. PONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF 4^TH BLOCK, BYPASS ROAD, KUSHALNAGAR, SOMAWARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.

¶7

REP. BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER MR. ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O K.N. BALASUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 45, 11^TH MAIN, 13^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶8

CASUBA INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: NO.14, "SRI NIKETAN", NANDI DURGA ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU. REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM.

¶9

...PETITIONERS

¶10

¶11

(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶15

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB REGIONAL OFFICE, BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW MANGALURU - 575 011.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KIADB REGIONAL OFFICE, BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW MANGALURU - 575 011.

¶17

….RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R1 & R4; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 07^TH JULY, 2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AS ONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, BY UPHOLDING THE AWARD DATED 16^TH MARCH, 2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS VALID AND BINDING UPON THE RESPONDENTS.

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶23

CAV ORDER

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)

¶25

In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the award dated 07^th July, 2023 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No. 3; inter alia sought for direction to the respondents to pay compensation as per award dated 16^th March, 2023 (Annexure-G) with interest.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 has issued Preliminary Notification dated 20^th December, 2016 (Annexure-A) under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act') sought to acquire the land at Malur and Kandavara Villages of Mangaluru Taluk for the purpose of development of Industrial Area and in furtherance of the same, Final Notification came to be issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 15^th December, 2017 (Annexure-B). It is stated in the writ petition that the respondent-Authorities have committed an error, while issuing the

¶27

¶28

notifications by stating that the claimants were entitled for compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') and same was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No.33053 of 2019 and this Court, by order dated 16^th December, 2019 (Annexure-C), set-aside the said communication dated 03^rd July, 2019 and held that the claimants were entitled for compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "New Act. 2013"). It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent No.3 has passed General Award dated 18^th November, 2020 (Annexure-D) treating the converted land as the agricultural land and same was questioned before this Court, in Writ Petition No.12699 of 2021 and this Court, by order dated 21^st October, 2022 (Annexure-E), quashed the General Award dated 18^th November, 2020 and directed the respondent-Authorities to pass fresh award in respect of the subject lands under the provisions of Section 30 of KIAD Act read with the New Act, 2013. It is further stated that, though this Court directed the respondent-Authorities to pass fresh award, however, the respondents failed to pass award and as such, the petitioners were constrained to file

¶29

¶30

contempt petition in C.C.C. No.364 of 2023 and in the said contempt petition, the respondent-Authorities have filed objections along with a copy of award dated 16^th March, 2023. In that view of the matter, the petitioners sought for dropping of contempt proceedings against the respondent-Authorities with liberty to pursue the writ petition in which, the petitioners have challenged the award made by the respondent-Authorities which is impugned in this writ petition and accordingly, the contempt petition came to be closed by order 28^th August, 2023 (Annexure-F). It is also stated in the petition that the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.15168 of 2023, seeking direction to the respondents to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.197,28,34,758/-. In the meanwhile, beneficiaries of land in question viz. Mangaluru Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. has filed Writ Petition No.22685 of 2023, challenging the notifications dated 15^th December, 2017 and 25^th November, 2020 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act and these two writ petitions were clubbed together and common order dated 22^nd February, 2024 (Annexure-M) was passed, dismissing the writ petition No.22685 of 2023 filed by the Mangalurau Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. and allowed the writ petitions in-part filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.15168

¶31

¶32

of 2023 and directed the respondent-Authorities to disburse the amount of Rs.55,69,76,660/- in terms of award dated 07^th July, 2023 (impugned in the present writ petition) . It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No.3, having passed the award dated 16^th March, 2023 became functus officio in passing any further awards and as such, there is no authority to pass the second award. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶33

Heard Sri. K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Sampath A., appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Reshmi M. Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-Government and Sri. B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB.

¶34

Sri. K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondent-Authorities have passed award dated 16^th March, 2023 in connection with the acquisition proceedings referred to above and have determined the compensation as a sum of Rs.197,28,34,758/- and thereafter, the respondent-Authorities have no authority under law to issue second award in respect of the very same acquisition proceedings and as such, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard,

¶35

¶36

learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.10525 of 2021 disposed of on 26^th September, 2022 and has referred to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment and contended that, neither in LA Act nor in the New Act, 2013 nor under the provisions of the KIAD Act, provides for issuance of second award and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶37

Sri. K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, referred to award dated 23^rd December, 2022 (Annexure-R7), filed by the respondents in the additional statement of objections and contended that the respondents are urging another third award dated 23^rd December, 2022 which is not permissible under law and therefore, the respondents be directed to give effect to award dated 16^th March, 2023 (AnnexureG). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to paragraphs 48 and 54 to 58 in the judgment referred to at Annexure-M contended that, this Court has heavily deprecated the action of the respondent-KIADB with regard to passing of the award in respect of the land in question and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶38

¶39

It is also the submission made by learned Senior Counsel

¶40

appearing for petitioners that as the respondent-Authorities admitted about the passing of award dated 16^th March, 2023 in the statement of objections filed in C.C.C No.364 of 2023, and therefore, the said admission is a foundation for the rights of the parties as such, the respondent-Authorities must give effect to the admission made thereunder. In order to buttress his arguments, learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANGRAM SINH P. GAEKWAD AND

¶41

OTHERS vs. SHANTA DEVI P. GAEKWAD (D) THR. LRS AND OTHERS reported in (2005)11 SCC 314 and contended that the second award dated 07^th July, 2023 (Annexure-G) is required to be set-aside in this writ petition.

¶42

Per contra, Sri. B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB categorically submitted that the respondent-Authorities have not passed two or three awards as contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent-Authorities have passed only one award dated 07^th July, 2023 (Annexure-G), in respect of the acquisition proceedings referred to above, which came to be

¶43

¶44

approved by the respondent-Government by order dated 07^th September, 2023 (Annexure-J) and therefore, the award which came to be approved by the Government alone is a award made under the provisions of Section 37 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is also the contention raised by learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB that the respondent-KIADB has not filed objections in C.C.C No.364 of 2023 and further, the award 16^th March, 2023 (Annexure-G) and the award dated 23^rd December, 2022 (Annexure-R7) are the draft awards and the only award approved by the acquiring authorityState Government as per Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the KIAD Act is the award and therefore, by referring to the Circular issued by the Government dated 25^th January, 2022 (Annexure-R4), learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB contended that, unless the award prepared by the respondent-KIADB is approved in terms of the Circular dated 25^th January, 2022 (Annexure-R4), no other awards could be considered as valid award under the KIAD Act. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶45

¶46

In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BAILAMMA (SMT) @ DODDA BAILAMMA (DEAD) AND OTHERS vs. POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND OTHERS reported in (2006)2 SCC 416 and contended that the award, which has been signed by the Government becomes an award under law and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶47

Smt. Rashmi M. Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Government argued on similar lines of learned counsel appearing for the respondentKIADB.

¶48

In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core questions to be answered in this writ petition is that, when the award passed by the competent authority determining the compensation to be payable to the claimants become an award in law.

¶49

Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB raised preliminary objection that the beneficiary of the land-Mangaluru Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., is a necessary party to the proceedings and in the absence of the said

¶50

¶51

beneficiary, writ petition is not maintainable, however, in view of the observation made by this Court in Writ Petition No.15168 of 2023 (Annexure-M), I am of the opinion that, the said beneficiary of the land cannot be arraigned as necessary and proper party in the present writ petition and therefore, said submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB with regard to non-joinder of party cannot be accepted.

¶52

In the backdrop of these aspects, Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of LA Act provides for issuance of Preliminary and Final Notifications and power is vested with the appropriate Government to issue such notifications. Section 12 of the LA Act, provides for passing of award by the Collector when to be final. Section 15-A of the LA Act provides for power to be exercised by the Government to call for records before the award is made by the Collector under Section 11 of the LA Act. The language employed under Section 4, 6, 12 and 15-A of the LA Act, makes it clear that the State Government alone is empowered to issue the Notification regarding acquisition and award has to be prepared by the Collector and same is required to be approved by the State Government, being an acquiring authority.

¶53

¶54

Sections 11 of the New Act, 2013 empowers the appropriate Government to issue preliminary notification, proposed to acquire the land for the public purpose. Section 19 of New Act, 2013 provides for publication of declaration and summary of rehabilitation and settlement. After considering the report under Section 15(2) of New Act, 2013, if appropriate Government satisfies that, any land is need for the public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect and published in a manner as prescribed thereunder. Section 38 of New Act, 2013 provides for jurisdiction of the appropriate Government to call for records from the Collector before passing the award and Section 37 of the New Act, 2013 provides for awards of Collector when to be final. The language employed under Section 37(2) of the New Act, 2013 provides that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested who are not present personally or through their representatives when the award is made. Section 37 of the New Act, 2013 also provides that the award of the Collector shall be final and conclusive evidence of determining compensation and in terms of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BAILAMMA (supra) that the award which has already been signed by the Collector becomes an award

¶55

¶56

as soon as it is approved by the Government without any alteration. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under:

¶57

"25. The Collector is required to hear the persons interested and enquire into the objections, if any, raised by them on the points which he is required to determine. It is possible to conceive that he may hear the objections on several dates having regard to the number of objectors and the nature of the dispute that may arise, whereafter he must make up his mind and prepare his award. It is not expected of him that he should prepare his award in presence of the persons interested, since the Collector may take some time to make up his mind on the matters he is required to incorporate in his award. Thereafter, he is required to send his award to the Government for approval. The approval of the award may take some time, and it is not known to the Collector as to when the Government will approve the award. However, after the award is approved, if there is no alteration in the award, he is required to notify the parties concerned about the award. He may do so by fixing a date on which the parties may be required to appear for pronouncement of the award, or he may inform them by giving them written notice of the award. This is because an award is in the nature of an offer and must be communicated to the persons to whom the offer is made. There is nothing in Section 11 which expressly requires the Collector to

¶58

¶59

announce his award in the presence of the persons interested, though there is nothing which prevents him from declaring the award on a date fixed by him for the purpose. However, having regard to the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act, he must give immediate notice to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt that after the award is approved the same becomes an offer to be made to the persons interested, and this can be done by either giving notice to the persons interested of the date on which he may orally pronounce the award, or by giving written notice of the award to the persons interested. The question of limitation for filing a reference under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act has to be determined by reference to the date on which the award was either pronounced before the parties who were present, or the date of the receipt of notice of the award by those not present. The mere fact that the Collector did not pronounce the award after notice in the presence of the parties interested will not invalidate the award, though it may have a bearing on the question of limitation in the matter of seeking a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act. The award which has already been signed by the Collector becomes an award as soon as it is approved by the Government without any alteration. At best the appellants can contend that it becomes an award when notice is given to the parties interested. Viewed from

¶60

¶61

any angle, having regard to the fact that there is no dispute that the Government granted its approval on 16-11-1992 and notices were issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 20-11-1992, it must be held that the award was made within the period prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act. There was really no necessity for the Collector to sign the award again, nor does Section 11 requires that for the purpose of pronouncing the award notice should be given by the Collector to the persons interested. Section 11 requires notice to be given for the purpose of hearing objections. After the objections are heard, the Collector has to apply his mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances and prepare an award whereafter he is required to send it to the Government for approval. There is nothing in Section 11 which requires him to give notice to the persons interested of the date for pronouncement of the award, though, as we have observed earlier, there is also nothing which prevents him from giving such notice. We agree with the finding of the High Court that once it is shown that the award was made and signed and approved by the Government within the period prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act an award is validly made. In the instant case, we have satisfied ourselves that the award was received by the Deputy Commissioner after approval, and notice was thereafter issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 20-11-1992."

¶62

¶63

It is also to be noted that the said aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VIDHARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS

¶64

reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772. Paragraph 55 of the judgment reads as under:

¶65

"55. Sub-section (1) to Section 37 of the 2013 Act as well as sub-section (1) to Section 12 of the 1894 Act state that the award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested. It would not matter whether the person interested have appeared before the Collector or not. Further, the award is final and conclusive evidence as of the true area. Sub-section (3) to Section 37 of the 2013 Act requires the Collector to keep open to public and display summary of the entire proceedings undertaken in the case of acquisition of land, including the amount of compensation awarded. These mandates must be complied with, but as they are post the making of the award and, therefore, would not affect the validity of the award when made within the statutory time. Issue of notice by the Collector to the persons interested, which is to be given to the persons not present personally or through the representatives when the award is made, is to be issued immediately, but the

¶66

¶67

issue of notice is not a condition precedent for making the award. Belated issue of notice would not, therefore, legally affect the validity of the award, though there may be other consequences. Equally, the limitation period to challenge and question the compensation awarded would commence on the service/intimation about making of the award on the landowners. [ See Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. LAO, AIR 1961 SC 1500 — the date for counting limitation period means the date of communication or is known by a party whether actually or constructively.] Be that as it may, when satisfied that the award was made/published within the prescribed period, even when there was backdating of the award or delay in effecting service on the landowners, the land acquisition proceedings need not be set aside."

¶68

The mandate under Section 28 of the KIAD Act provides

¶69

for acquisition of land and the acquiring authority as per Section 28(1) of the said Act to issue Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification is to be issued as per Section 28(4) by the State Government and thereafter, such acquired land under KIAD Act, be transferred to the respondent-KIADB for the purpose for which the land has been acquired. Section 29 of the KIAD Act provides for granting of compensation, wherein, Section 29(1) the KIAD Act postulates that the acquiring authority is the State Government

¶70

¶71

and further the State Government has been empowered to pay such acquisition compensation to the land loosers and therefore, in all the above three enactments, the acquiring authority being the State Government alone empowered to approve the draft award said to have been prepared by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner and the said award shall come into force only after approved by the State Government, being a acquiring authority. In that view of the matter, referring to the facts of the present case, the award dated 16^th March, 2023 (Annexure-G) and award dated 23^rd December, 2022 (Annexure-R7), have not reached the logical end as the same has not secured the approval of the State Government and therefore, these two awards, though prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, determining the compensation, to be considered as draft awards and have no legal legs to be considered as an award under the aforementioned Act. However, the award dated 07^th July, 2023 (Annexure-H) said to have been prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and same has been approved by the State Government as per order dated 07^th September, 2023 (Annexure-G) in accordance with the Circular dated 25^th January, 2022 (Annexure-R4) and therefore, the same be considered as the only award passed by the respondent-Authorities. At this stage, it

¶72

¶73

is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

¶74

case of STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS vs. RAJIV GUPTA AND ANOTHER reported in (1994)5 SCC 686 at paragraph 6 held as follows:

¶75

"6. Section 11 postulates of conducting an enquiry and making the award by the Collector. The first proviso envisages that “no award shall be made by the Collector under sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf ”. It is common knowledge that exercising the power under the first proviso, the appropriate Government made rules or statutory orders or instructions whatever be the nomenclature, they have statutory operation giving authorisation to the Land Acquisition Collector to make an award up to a particular pecuniary limit without prior approval either of the appropriate Government or an officer authorised by the appropriate Government in that behalf. If the award exceeds the limit, prior approval of the State Governments or authorised officer is mandatory. Any award made in violation thereof, renders the award non est and void as it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Collector or Officer. No doubt, Mr Markandeya is right that the State had not produced before us rules or orders issued under the first proviso to Section 11 that the Land Acquisition Officer shall not make an award

¶76

¶77

exceeding one crore of rupees without prior approval of the Commissioner, namely, Commissioner, Board of Revenue. But nonetheless, there is a statutory inhibition by first proviso to Section 11 that the prior approval either of the appropriate Government or of an officer which the appropriate Government authorises in that behalf, is mandatory for making an award. It is a condition precedent. Obviously, for this reason, the Collector in his letter dated 20-12-1992, addressed to the Commissioner, seeking prior approval thus:

¶78

“Proposed award

¶79

***

¶80

Thus the proposed lands are disputed lands, and therefore, it has been mentioned in the proposed award that payment of compensation shall be made after obtaining the final report of the enquiry officer and the final judgment passed in the cases pending in different courts. Since, in the present case, the award is to be made up to 21-12-1992 only, it is to request you to kindly give your prior approval on the proposed award.”

¶81

Its bare reading clearly indicates that the conscience that he is required to make the award on or before 2112-1992 and to seek prior approval and accordingly he requested the Commissioner to grant him prior approval as is enjoined in the first proviso to Section 11 to make the proposed award. The heading of the award itself clearly indicates working of his mind that it is only a

¶82

¶83

proposed award and after prior approval is given, he is enjoined to make the award under Section 11 of the Act. Since prior approval was not given before the expiry of 21-12-1992, there is no award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the eye of law the proposed award of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act is not the award. As seen, Section 11-A is mandatory and on expiry of two years from the date of publication of declaration, i.e., on 21-12-1992, the entire proceedings under the Act stood lapsed. We are not concerned in this case with the proviso to Section 11-A. The High Court was, therefore, not right in its construction that there was an award made by the Collector on 20-121992 and the direction to take further steps in that behalf are clearly illegal. The review petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 10-12-1993 of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs."

¶84

It is also relevant to cite the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 11 SCC 480. Paragraph 29 of the judgment reads as under:

¶85

¶86

"29. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Collector moved the Government seeking its approval for the proposed award. This was imperative as per the first proviso to Section 11. The Government considered the matter and did not approve the proposed award. When no such approval was granted by the Government, the Collector could not have made the award and in fact he did not. As a result thereof, the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The lapse of acquisition proceedings in the circumstances under Section 11-A cannot and would not amount to withdrawal from acquisition by the Government under Section 48(1). We answer Point (1) in the negative."

¶87

In view of law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, the proposed award made by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner/SLAO under the relevant Act mandatorily requires the approval by the State Government, being an acquiring authority, under such enactment and therefore, the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted that the award dated 07^th July, 2023 (Annexure-H) is second award and award dated 16^th March, 2023 (Annexure-G) is the first award on the sole ground that the said award dated 16^th March, 2023 has not been approved by the State Government in terms of the provisions referred to above. In

¶88

¶89

that view of the matter, at no stretch of imagination, it may be concluded that there are two awards and the award dated 07^th July, 2023 which has been approved by the Government on 07^th September, 2023 (Annexure-J), is the only award passed by the respondent-Authorities and therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners.

¶90

Be that as it may be, it is always open for the claimant/petitioners to approach the competent Court/Authority seeking enhancement of compensation under the relevant Act, if the claimants feel that the award amount specified in the award dated 07^th July, 2023 is meagre and requires enhancement. In this regard, this Court, in Writ Petition No.15168 of 2023 (Annexure-M) disposed of on 22^nd February, 2024, reserved liberty to the land owners to seek for enhancement of compensation in a manner known to law.

¶91

Having arrived at a conclusion in the present writ petition that the respondent-Authorities have passed only the award dated 07^th July, 2023 (Annexure-H) which came to be approved by the State Government on 07^th September, 2023

¶92

¶93

(Annexure-J), it is open for the petitioner/claimants to seek for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶94

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶95

ARK

Jemcy Ponnappa C P v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jemcy Ponnappa C P v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Magadi Taluk Agricultural Produce Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.M. Somanna Vs Bangalore Development Authority

K Narayan Vs the Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Vs the Assistant Provident

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Lakshminarayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka