Sri. B S Mariswamy vs The Principal Secretary
2022 Latest Caselaw 10211 Kant

                              1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

        WRIT PETITION NO.44850 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

       SRI B S MARISWAMY
       S/O CHIKKALINGAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
       RESIDING AT BANANDUR VILLAGE
       BIDADI HOBLI
       RAMANAGAR TALUK - 571511
                                            ... PETITIONER
       (BY SRI M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE - 560001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
       RAMANAGAR - 571511

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       RAMANAGAR SUB-DIVSION
       RAMANAGR - 571511

4.     THE TAHSILDAR
       RAMANAGAR TALUK
       RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 571511
                               2


5.    THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
      KHANIJA BHAVAN
      RACE COURSE ROAD
      BANGALORE - 560001

6.    THE EXECUTIVE MEMBER
      KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
      DEVELOPMENT BOARD
      KHANIJA BHAVAN
      RACE COURSE ROAD
      BANGALORE - 560001
                                               ... RESPONDENTS

      (BY SRI C.N. MAHADESWARAN, A.G.A., FOR R-1 TO R-4,
          SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-5 & R-6)

                             ***

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 AND TO PASS
APPROPRIATE ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE JUDGMENT PASSED
IN R.F.A. NO.1042 OF 2000 VIDE ORDER CLAUSE (4) MUTATION
ENTRIES MADE BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL STAND ANNULLED
AND   THE   REVENUE    AUTHORITIES   SHALL   MAKE   ENTRIES   IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE DECREE PASSED AND
CONSEQUENTLY      TO    EFFECT     THE   NAMES      OF   LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE B.C. PUTTASWAMAIAH IN THE REVENUE
RECORDS, RTC IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.81 EXTENT OF
20.00 ACRES 0-12 GUNTAS, VIDE ORDER DATED 15-4-2014 AT
ANNEXURE-A.

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                3


                            ORDER

It is not in dispute that there was litigation in respect of

suit property in O.S. No. 8 of 1997. During pendency of this

suit, the suit property was acquired and compensation has

been paid to the notified khatedhar.

2. In other words, compensation was paid to the person

in whose name revenue records stood as on the date of

acquisition. The above suit instituted by the petitioner was a

suit for declaration and the same was dismissed.

3. As against the said dismissal, an appeal was

preferred before this Court in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000. A

Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and passed

the following order:

"ORDER

(1) The appeal is allowed.

(2) The judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside.

(3) The plaintiffs suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit schedule property in terms of the partition deed dated 18.10.1970 which is marked as Ex.P.22.

(4) Mutation entries made by revenue authorities shall stand annulled and the revenue authorities shall make entries in accordance with the terms of the decree passed in this case.

(5) Insofar as compensation payable is concerned, the plaintiffs to work out their remedy in accordance with law."

4. The effect of this order is that the plaintiffs therein

have been declared as owners of the suit property. The

petitioner herein was the second plaintiff in the said suit.

This Court has also held that mutation entries made by

Revenue Authorities shall stand annulled and the Revenue

Authorities are required to make entries in accordance with

the terms of the decree.

5. It was the initial grievance of the petitioner in this

petition that despite the decree, the Revenue Authorities had

not mutated the name in accordance with the terms of the

decree. Subsequently, I.A. No.1 of 2022 was filed seeking for

amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. The amendment

sought for was to direct respondent Nos.5 and 6-The Special

Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Member of

Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short,

'KIADB' respectively) to release the compensation amount in

respect of survey No.81 measuring 20 acres 12 guntas with

all statutory benefits, interest and damages to the petitioner.

6. In my view, since KIADB was a party to the order

passed in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000, I.A. No.1 of 2022 for

amendment would have to be allowed and it is accordingly

allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner to file amended

writ petition.

7. KIADB has filed an Affidavit today in which it is

stated as follows:

3. "I state that, land bearing Sy No.81 of Shanumangla was one of the lands acquired by the State Government by a final notification dated 15/07/1997 issued under section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. The notified khathedar was one Sri. H.P. Nagendra S/o H.L. Puttaih. Accordingly the compensation amount of Rs.86,10,000/- paid to him on 06/12/1997 by entering into agreement under 29(2) of the Act coupled with indemnity Bond. The Khathedar has also furnished Bank Guarantee dated 06/12/1997 issued by State Bank of India, SSI Branch, Kumara Park West, Bengaluru-20. The copies of agreement, indemnity Bond, payment receipt and Bank Guarantee are herewith produced marked as Annexure R1 to R4.

4. I submit that, one Subedar Lingappa has filed O.S.No.141/97 for reopening of the partition and O.S.No.8/1997 was filed by B.C.

Puttaswamaih and others for the relief of declaration. The said suits were dismissed on 30/10/2000.

5. I submit that, in view of dismissal of suit the Bank Guarantee furnished by aforesaid H.P.Nagendra came to canceled by a communication dated 06/11/2000 addressed to the Bank. Further a sum of Rs.3,43,797/-

was paid to Sri.H.P. Nagendra on 22/03/1999 towards Malkies by entering into agreement and indemnity Bond. The copy of the payment receipt for Rs.3,43,797/- is herewith produced and marked as Annexure- R5.

6. I submit that, Sri. B.C. Puttaswamaih and other filed RFA 1042/2000 on the file of this Hon'ble Court being aggrieved by the judgment and Decree dated 31/10/2000 passed in O.S.8/1997. In the said appeal the KIADB has been impleaded as 4th respondent. The said appeal was allowed on 15/04/2014 vide Annexure A to the above case. This Hon'ble Court while disposing the above appeal in para 23 was please to observe that, in order to grant a relief of declaration and cancellation of mutation entry the subsequent

purchaser or KIADB which has stepped into the shoes of purchaser is neither a necessary nor a proper party. In so far compensation is concerned that is a matter to be worked out in a manner known to the law. That cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings."

8. As could be seen from the said Affidavit, KIADB had

disbursed the compensation after obtaining an indemnity

bond and also after a bank guarantee was furnished to it. It

is stated that on the dismissal of the suit, the bank guarantee

furnished by the khatedhar was cancelled and a further sum

of Rs.3,43,797/- was also paid to Sri H.P. Nagendra upon

execution of indemnity bond.

9. This averment in the Affidavit makes it clear that

KIADB was conscious of the fact that O.S. No.8 of 1997 was

dismissed on 31-10-2000. The KIADB, with the legal

expertise of its command, must definitely be aware of the fact

that an appeal could be preferred within the period

prescribed. However, KIADB has chosen to cancel the bank

guarantee on 6-11-2000 i.e. within six days of the dismissal

of the suit. This clearly indicates the undue haste on the part

of KIADB. KIADB with its best experience in the matter of

payment of compensation must surely have taken steps to

satisfy itself whether an appeal had been preferred against

the dismissal of the suit with the legal expertise at its

command.

10. It is to be stated here that KIADB being aware of

the fact that there was litigation regarding compensation had

chosen to obtain not only an indemnity bond, but also a bank

guarantee before disbursal of the compensation. This clearly

proves that it had taken steps to ensure that compensation

amount that it was disbursing was subject to litigation and in

order to safeguard itself, it had obtained indemnity bond and

bank guarantee. This precaution, was however, thrown to the

wind, when KIADB decided to cancel the bank guarantee

within six days of the dismissal of the suit.

11. Be that as it may, it cannot be in dispute that

compensation is required to be paid to the true and lawful

owner of the property. This Court after considering the

claims of the rival parties declared that the plaintiffs in O.S.

No.8 of 1997 were the owners of the property and as a

consequence, it is these owners, who alone who would be

entitled for compensation. KIADB having obtained an

indemnity bond, from the persons who received the

compensation, would have the right to seek for recovery of

this compensation that it had disbursed.

12. Sri P.V. Chandra Shekar, learned counsel appearing

for KIADB, however, seeks to make an argument that in

R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000, this Court has held in paragraph

No.23 that the plaintiffs are entitled to agitate their rights

against KIADB. He states that this Court has categorically

stated that in so far as compensation was concerned, it was a

matter to be worked out in a manner known to law. His

argument, in essence, is that after a long drawn out legal

battle and after being successful in obtaining a decree that

the plaintiffs were the owners, they are required to be once

again driven to Court to secure another decree for recovery of

amount from the persons who had received the compensation

from KIADB which was subject to the execution of an

indemnity bond. This contention is stated only to be rejected.

13. The very purpose of KIADB in obtaining the

indemnity bond was to ensure that its interests are

safeguarded in the event if a claim was made in respect of

compensation that it had disbursed. Since KIADB had

obtained an indemnity bond, it would be open to KIADB to

proceed against the person, or persons, who have received the

compensation.

14. On the basis of the indemnity bond and the bank

guarantee, KIADB cannot disburse the compensation to

person who are not entitled to of and thereby depriving the

actual land owners of the compensation. If this argument is

to be accepted, the very purpose of person approaching the

Court of law and obtaining a decree that he was the owner

would be defeated. I am, therefore, of the view that this writ

petition deserves to be allowed.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

16. The Revenue entries shall be mutated in favour of

the petitioner as decreed in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000.

17. Further, since compensation was disbursed on the

basis of the names found in the khatha as on the date of

notification, by virtue of the fact that those entries has been

annulled in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000 and the plaintiffs therein

have been declared as owners, KIADB is required, in law, to

pay compensation in respect of the property which it was

acquired in favour of the petitioner and the other plaintiffs

who were declared as owners in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000.

18. It is thereafter open for KIADB to initiate

proceedings against the person who has received

compensation from KIADB on the basis of the indemnity

bond.

19. KIADB shall comply with this direction to pay the

compensation to the plaintiffs in R.F.A. No.1042 of 2000

within a period of four weeks' from today. [

Sd/-

JUDGE

kvk