Disposed

Susheela Udupa v. the President and Executive Director Udupi Power Corporation Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/18057/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land was acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 with consent compensation; an ex-gratia amount was paid after litigation-related delay. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that ex-gratia payments confer no enforceable right, the Court rejected the interest claim but directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation on tree compensation.

What the court decided

AI extract

Susheela Udupa Vs the President and Executive Director… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50482 WP No. 18057 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 18057 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SUSHEELA UDUPA (SINCE DECEASED) BY LRS

¶7

1(a) S. RAGHAVENDRA UDUPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶8

1(b) S. RAMAKRISHNA UDUPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶9

CHILDREN OF LATE SUSHEELA UDUPA SANANJE HOUSE YELLURU VILLAGE P.O. YELLURU-576 119 KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. VYASA RAO K S.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UDUPI POWER CORPORATION LTD., KOLACHUR, YELLURU VILLAGE PO-PILAR-574113, PADUBIDRI UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. S AISHWARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P N.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION REQUIRING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 18 PERCENT PER ANNUM ON RS.2,61,54,720.00 (AS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:50482 WP No. 18057 of 2023

¶20

CLAIMED IN ANNEXURE-C) FOR A PERIOD TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners’ land was acquired for the benefit of respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, “Act, 1966”).

¶25

The petitioners were paid a sum of Rs.33,65,280/as compensation for the acquisition of their land. This amount was paid with the petitioners’ consent under Section 29(2) of the Act, 1966. Subsequently, the beneficiary agreed to pay an additional ex-gratia amount of Rs.2,61,54,720/-. However, the release of the ex-gratia amount was delayed due to pending litigation concerning the subject land before this Court in W.P. No.8325/2012, which was disposed of on 18.06.2019 and later confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3656/2019 on 21.10.2022.

¶26

The petitioners submitted an application dated 08.11.2022, requesting the release of the ex-gratia amount, which was eventually paid on 28.03.2023.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:50482 WP No. 18057 of 2023

¶29

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. C. Krishna Reddy [(2003) 12 SCC 627] has held that no one has a legal right to claim a reward, as it is purely an ex-gratia payment subject to guidelines and at the absolute discretion of the competent authority. Such payments cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In the present case, compensation was paid based on the petitioners’ consent under Section 29(2) of the Act, 1966, and there was no contract between the petitioners and the beneficiary regarding the payment of interest on the ex-gratia amount. Consequently, the petitioners’ claim for interest on the exgratia amount is not sustainable.

¶30

The petitioners have also represented before the Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), Mangaluru, requesting payment of the market value for the trees standing on the acquired land in Sy. No.188/A of Yellur village, Kaup Taluk.

¶31

The learned counsel for respondent-KIADB submitted that the entire compensation, including that related to standing trees, has already been settled.

¶32

In light of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 06.02.2024 submitted by the petitioners, as per Annexure-D annexed to I.A. No.3/2024. Respondent No.2

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:50482 WP No. 18057 of 2023

¶35

shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶36

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶37

BKM

Susheela Udupa v. the President and Executive Director Udupi Power Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Susheela Udupa v. the President and Executive Director Udupi Power Corporation Ltd.

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

Victory Sports and Cultural Association Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S a Veerabhadra Prasad Vs the Commissioner of Endowments

Sri. T. R. Vishnumurthy Vs Union Bank of India

Vinod Ramnani Vs State Bank of India

M/S Muthoottu Mini Financiers Ltd. Vs Union of India

Chandru Vs the State of Karnataka