Karnataka Industrial Area ... vs Akkayamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 11739 Kant

                             1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          PRESENT

              THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A.No.596/2022(LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

1.     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
       DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
       EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN
       RACE COURSE ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
       (WRONGLY SHOWN AS
       COMMISSIONER)

2.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON
       OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
       AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
       4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
       EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN
       RACE COURSE ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001.             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI ASHOK NARAYAN NAYAK, ADV.)

AND:

AKKAYAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA
R/AT B.K. PALYA VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU
                             2



NORTH (ADDL) TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 013.
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS

1.   SHRI MUNIYAPPA
     HUSBAND OF LATE AKKAYYAMMA
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS

2.   SHRI P.M. NAGARAJU
     S/O MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

3.   SHRI SRINIVAS P.M
     S/O MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

4.   SHRI LAKKAPPA P.M
     S/O MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

     RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE
     RESIDING AT B.K. PALYA
     B.K. HALLI BANDI
     KODIE HALLI
     BANGALORE - 562 149.

5.   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
     BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 001.

6.   THE TAHSILDAR
     BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL)
     TALUK, YELAHANKA
     BENGALURU - 560 064.

7.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
     & INDUSTRIES
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                                 3



(BY SRI S.P. SHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SMT. SUMANGALA A SWAMY, ADV., FOR
    SRI S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-5 TO R-7)

      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 46860/2018 (LA-KIADB)
DIRECTING THE SLAO TO PAY THE INTEREST TO THE PETITIONERS
AT THE RAT OF 9 PERCENT PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE ON
WHICH THE POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS TAKEN
TILL THE DATE OF DISBURSEMENT OF COMPENSATION AT THE
RATE OF RS. 62 LAKHS WITHIN 12 WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF
THE PRESENTATION.

      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order

dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.No.46860/2018.

2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties

and also perused the material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records

are, land bearing Sy. No.7 measuring 2 acres of B.K.Palya

village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North (Additional) Taluk, owned

and possessed by the original writ petitioner - Smt.

Akkayamma was acquired for the purpose of the appellant-

Board in the year 2006. Smt. Akkayamma was not paid

compensation in respect of the land in question because the

revenue records of this property did not stand in her name.

Doubting the veracity of the grant order dated 18.12.1962

issued in favour of Smt. Akkayamma, the Special Deputy

Commissioner had initiated suo motu proceedings which was

subsequently closed by order dated 27.01.2016 with a

direction to respondent no.4-Tahsildar to enter the name of

Smt. Akkayamma in the revenue records of the land in

question.

4. In the meanwhile, the appellant-Board had

transferred the compensation amount payable in respect of

the land in question to the jurisdictional Tahsildar. Smt.

Akkayamma had filed W.P.No.19704/2016 for a direction to

the appellant-Board to release the compensation with interest

at 18% per annum. The writ petition was disposed of

directing the Tahsildar to return the amount in relation to the

land in question to the appellant-Board within a period of four

months and the appellant-Board was directed to pass an

award in accordance with law in respect of the land in

question within three months thereafter and was also directed

to deposit the award amount in the Civil Court under Section

31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Civil Court

was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Tahsildar had returned the compensation

amount to the appellant-Board, but the appellant-Board had

not deposited the compensation amount before the Civil

Court as directed by this Court. However, because of the turn

of events, the appellant-Board had disbursed the

compensation to Smt. Akkayamma at the rate of Rs.62 lakhs

per acre pursuant to an agreement executed by her stating

that she was receiving the said amount in lieu of the amount

that she could claim in terms of the general award under

Section 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development

Act, 1966.

5. In the meanwhile, certain other similarly situated

persons had filed W.P.No.51023/2013 and connected matters

which were disposed of by this Court on 03.04.2014

observing that the petitioners therein must be paid

compensation in terms of the deemed consent award at the

rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till

the date of payment, in the event it is found that they are the

original owners of the lands which were the subject matter of

the said writ petitions. It is under these circumstances, Smt.

Akkayamma had approached this Court in

W.P.No.46860/2018 with a prayer to direct the appellant-

Board to pay interest to her at the rate of 18% per annum on

the compensation amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/- received by

her from the date of taking possession i.e., 15.07.2009 till

the date of payment. During the pendency of the writ

petition, Smt. Akkayamma died. The learned Single Judge,

vide the order impugned has allowed the writ petition in part

and directed the appellant-Board to pay interest to the legal

representatives of the original petitioner at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date which the possession of the land in

question was taken till the date of payment. Being aggrieved

by the said order, the appellant-Board has preferred this

appeal.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits

that the award passed in the case of Smt. Akkayamma was a

consent award, and therefore, the learned Single Judge was

not justified in awarding interest. He submits that Smt.

Akkayamma has received the compensation amount in full

and final settlement of her claim by executing an agreement,

and therefore, she was not entitled to claim the interest. In

support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following

decisions:

i) STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER VS SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA BIRADAR & OTHERS - AIR 2005 SC 2204;

ii) ISHWARLAL PREMCHAND SHAH & OTHERS VS STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS - AIR 1996 SC 1616;

iii) STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS VS DAYA SHAMJI BHAI & OTHERS - (1995)5 SCC 746;

iv) SURESH D.BANKAPUR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - W.P.No.30007/2013 disposed of on 28.03.2013.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

legal representatives of respondent no.1 submits that in

identical circumstances, this Court has awarded interest at

9% per annum in respect of the other land owners in respect

of the very same notification, and therefore, the same

yardstick has been adopted on the ground of parity. He

submits that though there was an order passed by this Court

in the earlier round of litigation to deposit the amount before

the Civil Court, the appellant-Board has not complied with the

order and retained the money with it, and therefore, it is

liable to pay the interest.

8. The material on record would go to show that Smt.

Akkayamma was not a party to any proceedings before the

Price Advisory Committee and undisputedly, she did not

participate in the said proceedings regard having to the doubt

about her title to the land in question. The suo motu

proceedings initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner

was closed and the Tahilsdar was directed to enter the name

of Akkayamma in the revenue records of the land in question.

Though this Court in W.P.No.19704/2016 had directed the

appellant to deposit the compensation amount before the

Civil Court, the said order was not complied with and

thereafter under an agreement, the amount of

Rs.1,24,00,000/- was paid to Smt. Akkayamma towards

compensation in respect of the land in question which

measured 2 acres.

9. This Court in W.P.No.51023/2013 and connected writ

petitions disposed of on 03.04.2014, in almost identical

circumstances had observed that the petitioners therein

should be paid compensation in terms of the deemed consent

award with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking

possession of the land till the date of payment. Even in the

said case, the title of the lands of the petitioners therein was

doubted and the Deputy Commissioner had initiated

proceedings in that regard, which was ultimately dropped.

The said order was questioned by the Karnataka Public Lands

Corporation, a Government of Karnataka undertaking before

this Court in W.P.No.29066/2011 which was dismissed on

03.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioners therein had exercised

their option for receiving the compensation in terms of the

consent award and a sum of Rs.62 lakhs per acre was

assured to them. Inspite of the same, a general award was

passed awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per

acre and it is under these circumstances, they had

approached this Court and the learned Single Judge had

disposed of the writ petition observing that the State

Government through its competent officer may proceed with

the action initiated in accordance with law and should the

proceedings result in favour of the petitioners therein, they

should be paid compensation in terms of a deemed consent

award with interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking

possession of the land till the date of payment. The said order

has undisputedly attained finality. Following the said order

passed in W.P.No.51023/2013 and connected cases, the

learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order

directing the appellant-Board to pay interest to the legal

representatives of the original petitioner at the rate of 9% per

annum from the date of taking possession till the date of

payment on the amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/- paid to Smt.

Akkayamma towards compensation of the land in question.

We find no illegality or irregularity in the said order passed by

the learned Single Judge.

10. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel

for the appellant would not be applicable to the facts and

circumstances of the present case as the same has been

rendered in cases where the consent award was passed

pursuant to the agreements entered into by the authorities

with the land owners. In the present case, there is no such

consent award and Smt. Akkayamma was paid compensation

at the rate agreed by the other owners of the land under the

consent award.

11. Further, the learned Single Judge has passed the

impugned order on the ground of parity relying upon the

order passed by this Court in W.P.No.51023/2013 and

connected cases, which undisputedly has attained finality.

Therefore, we find no good ground to interfere with the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge which is

challenged in this appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

KK