Disposed

S Aditya Ravi Raj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2024WP/3263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought proper compensation from Power Grid Corporation for lands crossed by power lines. Court held that Section 95 KLR Act conversion irreversibly makes land non-agricultural regardless of two-year usage limits, rejected the agricultural valuation basis of the Deputy Commissioner's Official Memorandum, and directed re-determination at prevailing market value including corridor area imp

What the court decided

AI extract

S Aditya Ravi Raj Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 3263 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

S ADITYA RAVI RAJ S/O LATE S JAYADEV AGED 39 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO 105, ROAD NO 1 JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500 033.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHAHBAAZ HUSAIN., ALONG WITH MS. RASHI SINGH, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560001.

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

POWER GRID CORORPATION OF INDIA LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT SOUTHERN REGION TELECOM CONTROL CENTRE, DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, YELAHANKA BANGALORE - 560064

¶14

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT B-9, QUTAB INDUSTRIAL AREA KATWARIA SARAI NEW DELHI – 110016. UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶18

DISTRICT OFFICES COMPLEX SHIDLAGHATTA ROAD CHIKKABALLAPURA KARNATAKA – 562101.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. HEMALATHA.V., AGA FOR R-1 & 3; SRI. JOSHUA HUDSON SAMUEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT R2 TO PAY ELIGIBLE COMPENSATION TOWARDS RESIDENTIAL LANDS BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF ELECTRICITY ACT READ WITH SECTION 10(d) OF TELEGRAPH ACT IN COMPLIANCE WITH GUIDELINES LAID DOWN BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 15/10/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed seeking for a direction to the 2^nd

¶26

respondent to pay the eligible compensation to the petitioner’s land in terms of the provisions of Electricity Act read with Section 10(d) of Telegraph Act and the guidelines laid down by the Government of India dated 15.10.2015 vide Annexure-F.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶28

A prayer is also made to direct the 2^nd respondent to assess the compensation in light of present-day market value or in the alternative to direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of payment of compensation.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the power lines were drawn over the lands of the petitioner and the details of the lands which were affected by drawing power lines are indicated in Annexure-D. It is also not in dispute that the lands belonging to the petitioner were also included in Annexure-D.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands of the petitioner were in fact permitted to be used for non-agricultural purposes as provided under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for brevity, “the KLR Act”) and the petitioner had also paid the conversion fine. He therefore submits that the nature of the land cannot be treated as agricultural land and for the purposes of assessing compensation, the respondents are required to

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶33

ascertain the value of the land as a non-agricultural land and thereafter determine the compensation.

¶34

He submits that the respondents, on the other hand, are seeking to rely upon the Official Memorandum dated 20.03.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, in which, the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the value of the lands on the premise that all of them were agricultural lands. He also submits that the beneficiaries have paid compensation only in accordance with this particular Official Memorandum which would be incorrect and the petitioner would be deprived of a right to appropriate compensation.

¶35

Sri Joshua Hudson Samuel, learned counsel appearing for the beneficiary contends that the petitioner’s petition ought not to be entertained since he has an alternative remedy of approaching the District Judge under Section 16 of the Telegraphs Act. He also submits that the order of conversion that the petitioner places reliance upon was to be utilized within a period of two years and since admittedly the lands were not used for the purpose

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶37

for which it was permitted within a period of two years from the date of order of conversion, the petitioner cannot claim compensation on the premise that it is a nonagricultural land.

¶38

It is to be stated at the very outset that the moment the Deputy Commissioner exercises statutory power under Section 95 of the KLR Act and permits the occupants to use the land for non-agricultural purposes and collects conversion fine as provided under the provisions of the KLR Act and the Rules, the nature of the land is irreversibly changed. The requirement of utilizing the land for the purposes for which it converted within a particular time frame, would have no consequences for determining the nature of the land.

¶39

It is to be noticed that even if the period of two years had elapsed and the land had not been utilized for the purposes for which it had been permitted, the land would not revert back to being an agricultural land. On the permission to be granted under Section 95 of the KLR Act,

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶42

the nature of the land stands converted and the land transforms into non-agricultural land, the compensation payable in respect of this land would also have to be on the premise that it is non-agricultural land. The respondents therefore were not justified in placing reliance on the Official Memorandum dated 20.03.2018 - Annexure-E to determine the compensation on the basis that the lands of the petitioner were agricultural lands.

¶43

As far as the argument that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the District Judge, in my view, it is settled law that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar. In this case, it is admitted by the respondent – beneficiary that the lands had indeed been converted prior to drawing of lines, but, nevertheless, the beneficiary contends that as per the Official Memorandum they have treated the lands as agricultural lands.

¶44

In the light of this admitted position that the lands had been permitted to be used for non-agricultural purpose by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 95 of

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶47

KLR Act even before the line was drawn, the entire basis for arriving at the compensation would palpably be incorrect. I am therefore of the view that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has an alternative remedy, it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.3 to re-determine the compensation by considering the land of the petitioner as non-agricultural lands and assess the compensation at the prevailing market value.

¶48

The 3^rd respondent shall also take into consideration that by virtue of the order of conversion being granted, the entire corridor area cannot be used for erecting residential buildings. The 3^rd respondent shall therefore consider payment of compensation in respect of the corridor area keeping in mind that the entire piece of land under which the lines were drawn cannot be used as provided under the permission granted under Section 95(3) of the KLR Act.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:29614 WP No. 3263 of 2024

¶51

This exercise of re-determining the compensation as

¶52

ordered above shall be carried out within a period of two

¶53

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶55

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

S Aditya Ravi Raj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

S Aditya Ravi Raj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr M Kaladhar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

V Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Siddhartha Kumar Vs Mrs. Neha Mehta

Smt. Jessy Robert Vs State of Karnataka

Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co. Ltd. Vs State Government Karnataka

Smt. Radhamma Vs Sri Ananda Reddy