Sri Rajan P Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION GAZETTED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 27.06.2012, IN NO.432 PART-III AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED GAZETTED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 25.02.2013, IN NO.522, PART-III ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B) IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER LAND IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioners have challenged a preliminary notification

¶32

bearing No.432 dated 27.06.2012 issued by respondent No.1 in

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:27687 WP No. 260 of 2014

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

so far as the land in Sy.No.13/4A and 13/6 of Malavoor village, Mangalore Taluk measuring 19 and 30 cents respectively.

¶37

The petitioners contend that they are the owners of

¶38

the aforesaid land and that respondent No.1 proposed to acquire 19 cents in Sy.Nos.13/4A and 30 cents in Sy.No.13/6 of Malavoor Village for the purpose of establishment of a gas pumping station for the benefit of respondent No.4. The petitioners submitted objections to the proposed acquisition. However, respondent No.1 proceeded to issue the final notification declaring its intention to acquire the aforesaid land for the said purpose. Aggrieved by the acquisition proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court contending that the establishment of a gas pumping station on the acquired land would endanger life and property of the general public, as the land is situated close to the airport. They further contend that their objections to the preliminary notification were not considered, in the manner required under law. They have also contended that upon acquisition of a portion of the aforesaid land, the remaining extent would be rendered unusable,

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:27687 WP No. 260 of 2014

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

thereby causing substantial prejudice and hardship to the petitioners.

¶43

(i) When this petition was listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' group, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the gas pumping station is already established on the acquired land and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in pursuing the challenge to the acquisition notifications. He, however, contended that notwithstanding the issuance of the final notification and in the absence of any impediment for the respondents to pass an award, respondent Nos.2 and 3 attempted to pass a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, to which the petitioners had objected. Nonetheless, respondent Nos.2 and 3 deposited the compensation determined under the said consent award. He submitted that after this Court took exception to the consent award, a general award was passed on 30.04.2018. He contended that the said award was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:27687 WP No. 260 of 2014

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

considering the fact that the land was already converted for non-agricultural commercial use.

¶48

(ii) He further contended that the respondents failed to consider the fact that the remaining portion of the property was rendered unusable on account of the acquisition. He therefore contended that the award passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is non-est in the eye of law, as the procedure prescribed for passing the award was not complied. He submitted that the petitioners cannot now be compelled to accept compensation determined on the basis of the market value prevailing in the year 2018. He therefore, prayed that for the purpose of determination of market value, the relevant date be shifted from the date of the preliminary notification to the date on which the award was passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, so as to ensure payment of just and fair compensation for the acquired land. He further submitted that while determining the compensation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to take into consideration the fact that the land was already converted from agricultural to non-agricultural commercial use and also the

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:27687 WP No. 260 of 2014

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

fact that the rear portion of the property is rendered unusable on account of the acquisition.

¶53

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 does

¶54

not dispute the fact that an attempt was made to pass a consent award during the pendency of this writ petition, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners had kept alive their challenge to the notifications. He also does not dispute the fact that the consent award was not given effect to and was superseded by the general award on 30.04.2018. Learned counsel was unable to place on record any document to justify that the petitioners were either notified or were afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the general award as required under law. He also does not dispute the fact that consequent upon the acquisition, the rear portion of the petitioners' land is left behind, which cannot be put to any use.

¶55

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that

¶56

the purpose for which the land was acquired is already implemented and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by setting at nought the acquisition proceedings. He also does

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:27687 WP No. 260 of 2014

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

not dispute the fact that a portion of the acquired land remains unutilized.

¶61

In view of the submission of the learned counsel that the land is already utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, no useful purpose would be served in going to the question, whether the acquisition notifications issued by respondent No.1 were justified or otherwise.

¶62

However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the preliminary notification was issued on 27.06.2012 but the general award was passed on 30.04.2018 and consequently, the petitioners were deprived of the benefit of the value of their land for nearly six years from the date of the preliminary notification. This contention deserves serious consideration as compensation for losing valuable commercial land should be just and fair and the landloser should be able to immediately rehabilitate himself by purchasing suitable land etc. Therefore, determination of compensation on 30.04.2018 on the basis of the market value prevailing on 27.06.2012 does not amount to payment of just compensation to the land losers, having regard to inflation, the

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:27687 WP No. 260 of 2014

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

diminishing purchasing power of money and the steady escalation in land prices. The compensation determined on the basis of the market value prevailing in the year 2012 would not place the petitioners in a position to acquire comparable property in the year 2018. It can therefore be held that compensation so determined is neither just nor fair for the acquisition of the petitioners' land.

¶66

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to higher compensation by considering 30.04.2018, the date on which respondent Nos.2 and 3 passed the award, as the relevant date for determination of the market value. In view of the fact that respondent No.3 has not taken into consideration the fact that the land in question was already converted for non-agricultural commercial purpose, but has treated the acquired land as agricultural land, and has also not taken into consideration the fact that the portion of the land lying behind the acquired property is rendered unusable on account of the acquisition, respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the same and pass a just and reasonable award by taking the above facts into consideration while determining the market value and award

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:27687 WP No. 260 of 2014

¶68

9 -

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

just compensation to the petitioners. This would also subserve the ends of justice and safeguard the interests of the petitioners who have lost their land for the benefit of respondent No.4.

¶71

The Writ petition is disposed off on the above

¶72

terms. The respondent No.3 shall determine the compensation in the manner stated above, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶75

HJ

¶76

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri Rajan P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajan P v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr K M Rasheed Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karntaka

Sri Yellappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

R Kumaraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Chikkatayamma Vs the State of Karnataka