Karnataka High Court
Mrs Sakkubai vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
WA No. 522 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
MRS. SAKKUBAI
W/O. LATE Y. K. GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT #5562, 7TH CROSS,
VISHWESHWARANAGARA,
MYSURU-570 008.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
I.L.B ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
I.L.B ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
WA No. 522 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.54673/2018 DATED 12/09/2022 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.54673/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by stating in paragraph 8 of the impugned order as under:
"8. In furtherance of the same, the respondent-
authorities have deposited the compensation amount before the civil court on 11.09.2014 produced at Annexure- F. It is also made clear that the petitioner has received cost of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent-authorities for having not deposited the compensation amount in furtherance of the said notifications, and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that as the petitioner herein has received cost in terms of the order dated 07.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.39216 of 2013, petitioner cannot be permitted to seek further compensation under any new Act, since the Preliminary Notification and the Final Notification have been issued much before the passing of the new act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In that view of the matter, I find force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and as the compensation has been deposited before the Civil Court in terms of the order dated 07.03.2014 passed in -3- NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB WA No. 522 of 2023 Writ Petition No.39216 of 2013 vide Annexure-F, I do not find any material illegality to interfere with the writ petition. In respect of arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeking alternative site, said submission has not been considered in the aforementioned writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot urge the same ground in the present writ petition and present writ petition is filed in the year 2018, after the conclusion of the earlier petition i.e. Writ Petition No.39216 of 2013. In that view of the matter also the present writ petition is deserved to be dismissed."
2. Suffice to state the facts relevant to be noted for the purpose of this appeal are that the respondent Authorities have issued Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1963 followed by Final Notification dated 25.03.1969, acquiring the land belonging to the appellant herein.
3. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that he has not been paid compensation in furtherance to the aforesaid notifications. He had initially approached this Court in W.P.No.39216/2013. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2014 disposed of the petition inter alia directing the respondent Authorities to deposit the compensation in Civil Court as per law with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be payable to the appellant herein or in the alternative, the respondent Authorities shall allot a site in favour of the appellant proportionate to the site that was acquired in terms of the aforesaid notifications.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB WA No. 522 of 2023
4. It is a matter of record that the appellant has made representation to the respondent Authorities dated 13.10.2024 seeking alternative site.
5. It is the stand of the appellant in writ petition that pursuant to the order passed in WP.No.39216/2013, the respondent Authorities have deposited the compensation amount under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act, 1894' for short) before the Civil Court.
6. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was also that the compensation amount that has been deposited by the respondent Authorities is inadequate and the compensation has to be deposited in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013' for short). It was also stated that since a direction has been issued by this Court to allot alternative site, the same has to be considered in the writ petition.
7. On the other hand, the case of the respondents before the learned Single Judge was that they have deposited -5- NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB WA No. 522 of 2023 the compensation in terms of the order passed by this Court in writ petition No.39216/2013 before the Civil Court with costs as awarded by the Court of Rs.50,000/-, and as such, the appellant cannot seek further compensation under the provisions of any other Act.
8. Today also, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would make similar submissions inasmuch as the compensation which has been awarded to the appellant is inadequate and the compensation having been deposited in the year 2014 has to be deposited under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and not under the provisions of the Act, 1894.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the submissions and justified the compensation granted to the appellant along with the costs on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB WA No. 522 of 2023
11. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge is right in referring to the order passed by this Court on 07.03.2014 in WP.No.39216/2013. Concedingly, the appellant has not challenged the order in a higher forum. It follows that the said order has become final inasmuch as the respondents, who were directed to deposit the compensation in the Civil Court along with cost of Rs.50,000/-, have complied with the order. Insofar as the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to alternative site as directed by this Court in its order dated 07.03.2014 is concerned, it is clear the order dated 07.03.2014 gives discretion to the respondents, either to deposit the compensation along with cost of Rs.50,000/- in the Civil Court which shall enure to the benefit of appellant or in the alternative, they shall allot a site in favour of appellant proportionate to the land that was acquired. The respondent Authorities decided to accept the earlier part of the order of depositing the compensation along with cost of Rs.50,000/- in the Civil Court.
12. Having said that, insofar as the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation has to be -7- NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB WA No. 522 of 2023 deposited under the Act of 2013 is concerned, the same is unmerited, as the compensation has been deposited by the respondents in terms of the directions given by this Court on 07.03.2014 when the new Act had already come into effect. If the appellant had any grievance with regard to such a direction, he should have challenged the same before a higher forum, having not done that and the said order having attained finality, we find no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. That apart, we agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that, the Preliminary and Final Notifications have been issued much before the passing of the Act of 2013. The appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of merit, the same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2023 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29