Karnataka High Court

M/S Deco Equipments Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2023

Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav

                          1
                                                       R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

     WRIT PETITION No.33180 OF 2016 (LA-RES)


BETWEEN:

M/S. DECO EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD.,
C-38, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA
METAGALLI,
MYSORE -16
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
DERIC FERNANDES.
                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI D.L.N. RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI RAGHAVENDRA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       M.S. BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       MYSORE DISTRICT
       MYSORE - 570 001.
                           2


3.   M/S. BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE
     RARE MATERIAL PROJECT
     MINISTRY OF ATOMIC ENERGY
     GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
     MYSORE - 570 001
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

4.   THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     HUNSUR TALUK
     MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001.

5.   THE UNION OF INDIA
     MINISTRY OF ATOMIC ENERGY
     GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
     NEW DELHI - 01
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R4;
    SRI OMKARESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
    SRI H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R5)

                         ***

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED AWARD BEARING NO.LAQ/CR/01/2006-07
DATED 20-01-2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-X PASSED BY THE 4 TH
RESPONDENT I.E., THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND
ETC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 14.07.2023 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                              3


                         ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking

quashing of the Award at Annexure-'X' dated 20.01.2016

passed by respondent No.4 - Land Acquisition Officer,

Mysore District. The petitioner has also sought for

issuance of a writ of mandamus to draw up an Award in

terms of Section 26 of 'The Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013' ('hereinafter referred to as

'2013 Act').

2. The Preliminary Notification under Section

4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter

referred to as '1894 Act') was issued on 15.03.2008

notifying the land of the petitioner. The Final Notification

under Section 6 and 17(1) of 1894 Act came to be

passed on 05.06.2009. The validity of the notification

came to be challenged in W.P.No.405/2010, which was

disposed off remitting the matter for fresh disposal after

affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of

1894 Act.

3. After rejecting the objections, the Notification

was published under Section 6(1) of 1894 Act. The

petitioner challenged the validity of the Notification in

W.P.No.10322/2013 and during the pendency of the said

Writ Petition, 2013 Act came into force and the petition

was disposed off as follows:-

"6. ... However, if an award has not been passed as on date, it would be necessary for determination of compensation under 2013 Act as is made plain under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act...."

4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)

has passed an Award, the copy of which is enclosed as

Annexure-'X' and the market value is fixed on the basis

of the sale consideration of Sale Deed dated 21.04.2007

for Rs.78,00,000/- and following the norms fixed in the

Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013.

5. The said Award has been assailed by the

petitioner contending that the Guidelines mandated

under Section 26 of 2013 Act have not been followed,

that the reliance on the Notification dated 04.07.2013,

which was passed prior to commencement of 2013 Act is

bad in law, that the value as the base price for

calculation of compensation under Section 26 of 2013

Act would be the value as on 01.01.2014, that the Apex

Court in the case of Hori Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh

and Others1 [Hori Lal] has taken the market value as

on 01.01.2014.

6. The respondents on the other hand have

contended that the value for the purpose of Section 26 of

2013 Act ought to be the value as on the date of the

2019 SCC OnLine SC 129

Section 4(1) notification under 1894 Act, that the Land

Acquisition Officer has rightly followed the Guideline

under the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013.

7. Heard both sides.

8. The points for consideration are as follows:-

(a) Where Notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is passed but Award is passed only after coming into force of 2013 Act, the market value of the land is to be determined as on the date of Section 4(1) Notification of 1894 Act or on 01.01.2014 when 2013 Act has come into force?

(b) Whether the Special Land Acquisition Officer could have relied on the Gazette Notification dated 04.07.2013 while fixing the market value?

9. At the outset, this Writ Petition is entertained

as the contention advanced is that the Land Acquisition

Officer has not adhered to the direction passed in

W.P.No.10322/2013, which mandates passing of Award

under 2013 Act. Even otherwise, there is no serious

opposition to the entertaining of the Writ Petition,

directly.

CONSIDERATION:-

10. The Preliminary Notification under Section

4(1) of 1894 Act was passed on 15.03.2008, and the

Base Value adopted was the consideration recorded in a

Sale Deed of 21.04.2007.

11. It must be noted that in terms of Section 24

of 2013 Act, "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in

this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings

initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of

1894) - (a) where no award under Section 11 of the said

Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions

of this Act relating to determination of compensation

shall apply." If that were to be so, the proceedings of

acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act are saved and

compensation is to be determined under the provisions

of the 2013 Act.

12. Section 26 of 2013 Act provides for

determination of the market value and proviso to the

aforesaid section is in the nature of an Explanation and

stipulates, "Provided that the date for determination of

market value shall be the date on which the notification

has been issued under Section 11."

13. The base point for calculation of compensation

is the date of Notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act,

while this would take care of the circumstance of

determination of market value as regards those matters

where notification is passed under Section 11 of 2013

Act, but the determination of market value as regards

Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act and where

award is sought to be passed subsequently under 2013

Act is not dealt with specifically.

14. The only manner of addressing such a

circumstance would be on the basis of the following legal

propositions:

(i) As regards notification under Section 4(1) of

the 1894 Act and where Award is sought to be

made after 2013 Act has come into force 'all

provisions' of 2013 Act shall be applicable2.

(ii) In terms of the Proviso to Section 26 of 2013

Act, the relevant date would be the date of

Notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act.

Section 24(1)(A) of 2013 Act

(iii) The earliest of the dates as regards

Notification under Section 11 of 2013 Act would be

01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act has come into force.

(iv) Accordingly, the market value even as

regards circumstance of 4(1) Notification under

1894 Act and where Award is sought to be passed

after coming into force of the 2013 Act would be as

on 01.01.2014.

15. It must be noted that in circumstances, where

the delay in passing of the Award, if could be attributed

to the land owner leading to the non-passing of Award

under the provisions of the 1894 Act and Award is

passed under 2013 Act, the Apex Court in Faizabad-

Ayodhya Development Authority, Faizabad v.

Dr.Rajesh Kumar Pandey3 has held that such land

(2022) SCC OnLine 879.

owner is not entitled for having the Award passed under

the provisions of 2013 Act.

However, in the present case, though initially the

petitioner had challenged the validity of the proceedings

in W.P.No.10322/2013, during the course of the

proceedings, the petitioner had settled for the relief of

entitlement of compensation in terms of 2013 Act and

accordingly, the petition was disposed off as follows:-

"6. ...However, if an award has not been passed as on date, it would be necessary for determination of compensation under the 2013 Act as is made plain under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act...."

This order having attained finality, the controversy

stands narrowed.

16. As regards the contention of the petitioner

that the Central Government is bound by the order of

26th October 2015 bearing D.O. Letter No.13013/01/

2014-LRD (pt), which stipulates taking of 01.01.2014 as

the relevant date, thereafter the Central Government has

clarified by its communication dated 26.09.2018 vide

letter No.13013/2017-LRD that the D.O. Letter No.

13013/01/2014-LRD (pt) dated 26.10.2015 is not an

order under Section 113 of 2013 Act, but is only a D.O.

letter.