Dismissed

The Project Director v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2024WP/8766/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 2017 Revised Land Acquisition Award. The court held that the petitioner was estopped and barred from fresh litigation after a prior Single Judge order (affirmed by Division Bench and Supreme Court) directed acceptance of the award and payment of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to disburse compensation per Revised Award dated 25.05.2017 within four weeks, failing which 18% interest per annum shall be paid.

The Project Director Vs the Special Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8766 OF 2023 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INIDIA PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT BASAVANAPPURA, RAMANAGARA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 128 REPRESENTED BY ITS. PROJECT DIRECTOR SR. B.T. SRIDHAR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SRUTI C CHAGANTI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA NH-275, NO. 2542, V.V. NAGA ROAD 2ND CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR MANDYA - 571 401.

¶14

M.K.JAYARAJU, S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶15

T.MARISWAMY GOWDA, S/O KOTTAKALLE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶16

M.C.H.MAHARISH, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGE MAJOR,

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶18

ANAND.M.H. S/O LATE HONNE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶19

M.T.BADRE GOWDA, S/O LATE DODDA MARIYAPPA, AGE MAJOR,

¶20

SMT. YASHODHAMMA, W/O LATE DRUVA RAJU, AGE MAJOR,

¶21

SMT.HEMAVATHI, D/O RENUKAMMA, AGE MAJOR,

¶22

M.R.MANJU, S/O LATE PANDIT RAME GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶23

SMT.HOMBAMMA, W/O LATE KOOTAKALLE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶24

M.T.RAVINDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶25

P.THAMMAIAH, S/O LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶26

C.BHANUMATHI, W/O LATE MADHUSUDHAN, AGE MAJOR,

¶27

S.P.RAJANNA, S/O LATE PUTTE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶28

BHAGYAMMA,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶30

W/O LATE SHANKAR, AGE MAJOR,

¶31

SUMITHRA BHAI, W/O LATE SIDDOJI RAO, AGE MAJOR,

¶32

H.M.LATHA, W/O THIMMARAJU, AGE MAJOR,

¶33

S.K.NAGESH, S/O LATE KUMARAIAH, AGE MAJOR,

¶34

MANGALAMMA, W/O LATE PANDU, AGE MAJOR,

¶35

C.SRINIVAS, S/O CHIKKATHIMME GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶36

YASHODAMMA, W/O LATE S.C.PUTTEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶37

MARIYAMMA, W/O LATE THIMMAIAH, AGE MAJOR,

¶38

D.L.RAJU, S/O LATE D.R.LINGAIAH, AGE MAJOR,

¶39

NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATESH, AGE MAJOR,

¶40

SMT.ANKAMMA, W/O CHIKKAPUTTE GOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶41

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶42

SURYANANDANA REDDY M.V., S/O LATE P.VENKATASHIVA REDDY, AGE MAJOR,

¶43

DHANALAKSHMAMMA, W/O NARAYANAGOWDA, AGE MAJOR,

¶44

M.C.MAMATHA, W/O SRINIVAS, AGE MAJOR,

¶45

M.C.MANJULA, W/O PUTTARAMU, AGE MAJOR,

¶46

R-2 TO 29 ARE RESIDENTS OF MATHIKERE VILLAGE, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶47

MATHIKERE MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MATHIKERE, CHANNAPATTNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 138.

¶48

VOKKALIGARA SARVAJANIKA VIDYARTHI NILAYA ®, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 138 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.S.RAJANNA.

¶49

SRI. K.R.KUMAR, S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED 47 YEARS,

¶50

SRI.KARIYAPPA, S/O LATE GAVIGOWDA, AGED 78 YEARS,

¶51

SRI.B.M.VIDYAPATHI,

¶52

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶53

S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA, AGED 75 YEARS,

¶54

SRI.K.SRINIVASAIAH, S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA, AGED 74 YEARS,

¶55

SMT.GAYATHRI BAI, W/O LATE THUKARAM RAO, AGED 65 YEARS,

¶56

SMT. ASHA, W/O SURESH, AGED 45 YEARS,

¶57

SMT.SHIVALINGAMMA, S/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED 65 YEARS,

¶58

SRI.RAJANNA, S/O CHIKKAIDEGOWDA, AGED 65 YEARS,

¶59

R-32 TO 39 ARE R/AT MATHIKERE VILLAGE, MALURU HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.

¶60

…RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI. M.H.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-39)

¶62

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE AWARD PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. LAQ/NHAI/NH-275/SUPPLIMENTARY AWD/ MATHIKERE/ CR-4/2016-17 DATED. 25.05.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-B AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS THERETO, ETC.

¶63

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶64

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶65

ORDER

¶66

The following facts are not in dispute.

¶67

The lands in question were notified under the Preliminary Notification dated 01.02.2016 followed by the Final Notification dated 16.01.2017.

¶68

On 27.03.2017, an Award was also passed by the competent Authority fixing the market value of the land at Rs.138/- per sq.ft. and Rs.150/- per sq. ft. for certain survey numbers.

¶69

About two months thereafter, on 25.05.2017, the competent Authority proceeded to pass a revised Award, whereby he awarded a sum of Rs.400/- per sq.ft. as against earlier sum of Rs.138/- per sq. ft. and Rs.150/per sq. ft. The competent Authority stated that the earlier amount of Rs.138/- and Rs.150 per sq. ft. was entered by inadvertence and the compensation to be paid was at Rs.400/- per sq. ft. The revised Award dated 25.05.2017

¶70

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶71

was communicated to the petitioner herein on whose behalf the lands were acquired.

¶72

The petitioner instead of accepting the revised award proceeded to address a communication dated 07.06.2017 to the competent Authority stating that it was impermissible in law to revise the Award.

¶73

This led to the filing of W.P. No.31457/2017 by the land losers. This Court, after hearing the petitioner and the land losers proceeded to record the following finding –

¶74

“The conduct of respondent No.2 in acceding to the request of respondent No.3 Spl.LAQ to rectify the omissions, discrepancies and errors in the award dated 27.03.2017 and returning the same to the respondent No.3 thereby permitting him to pass a fresh / rectified award dated 25.05.2017 is sufficient to indicate that the respondents are estopped from questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the said award. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned communications of respondents 2 and 3 are clearly barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver, particularly when all the respondents

¶75

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶76

have filed common statement of objections and are jointly defending the present petition and as such, the impugned communications at Annexures-G and H deserve to be quashed.”

¶77

The Court, thereafter, proceeded to pass an order in

¶78

the following terms :

¶79

“ ORDER

¶80

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶81

(ii) The impugned communication at Annexure-G dated 07.06.2017 and the impugned letter at Annexure-H dated 13.06.2017 are hereby quashed.

¶82

(iii) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to accept the award dated 25.05.2017 passed by respondent No.3 and disburse the compensation in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the said award as expeditiously as possible.”

¶83

As could be seen from the above, the learned Single

¶84

Judge of this Court recorded a clear finding that the petitioner herein was estopped from questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the Revised Award passed by the competent Authority on 25.05.2017 and this

¶85

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶86

Court also directed the petitioner to accept the Award dated 25.05.2017 and disburse the compensation in

¶87

favour of the land losers.

¶88

It is not in dispute that this order was carried in Writ Appeal in Division Bench in W.A. No.1311/2021 and the Division Bench by the order dated 20.04.2022 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶89

It is also stated at the Bar that the petitioner, thereafter, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the Special Leave Petition.

¶90

The petitioner has thereafter chosen to file this Writ Petition challenging the Revised Award dated 25.05.2017. This Writ Petition is based on the premise that the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal has observed that the petitioner had not challenged the Revised Award and unless there was a challenge, it could not entertain the

¶91

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶92

Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner therefore, contends that an implied liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the Award, and accordingly, this petition is filed.

¶93

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to put forth various arguments on the merits of the Revised Award.

¶94

However, in my view, none of the arguments advanced by the petitioner are liable to be entertained for the simple reason that the learned Single Judge of this Court categorically recorded a finding that the petitioner herein was estopped from questioning the legality, validity or correctness of the Revised Award dated 25.05.2017 and it further issued a positive direction to the petitioner to accept the award and disburse the compensation in favour of the petitioner. This positive direction has been confirmed by the Division Bench and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶95

11 -

¶96

NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶97

In light of this particular finding recorded by this Court and affirmed by the Division Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be impermissible for the petitioner to initiate a fresh round of litigation based on an observation made by the Division Bench while dismissing the appeal. The conduct of the petitioner in seeking to protract the entire proceedings despite a positive order granted by this Court, cannot be appreciated.

¶98

It is also to be noticed here that a Revised Award dated 25.05.2017 is sought to be challenged six years thereafter by filing of this Writ Petition on 12.04.2023. This only indicates that the entire intention of the petitioner is to protract the proceedings on a technicality. It is also to be noticed here that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the Revised Award dated 25.05.2017 and in light of the orders passed earlier and the positive direction issued by the learned Single Judge,

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2024:KHC:9364 WP No. 8766 of 2023

¶101

the present Writ Petition cannot be entertained. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed .

¶102

The petitioner shall disburse the compensation as per

¶103

the Revised Award dated 25.05.2017 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 18% per annum shall be paid on the amount from the date of Revised Award i.e., 25.05.2017 till the date of payment.

¶104

Sd/JUDGE

¶105

hnm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

The Project Director v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Project Director v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G K Prasanna Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Mr. Kishore Kumar S N Vs Mr. Narasimha Prasad T K

Sri K Hanumantharayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Bank Ltd., Vs Sri. Rajashekar. J

Smt Haseena Begum Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Khaleem Vs the District Wakf Committee