Karnataka High Court
Chief Commissioner vs State Of Karnataka on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT APPEAL NO.1226/2022 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Chief Commissioner
BBMP N R Square
Bengaluru-560002.
2. Deputy Commissioner
(Land Acquisition)
BBMP N R Square
Bengaluru-560002.
3. The Executive Engineer
BBMP, (Road Infrastructure)
Mahadevapura Division,
No.105, I Floor,
New Annex Building-03
N R Square,
Bengaluru-560002.
...Appellants
(By Sri. Monesh Kumar K.B., Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Govt.
Urban Development Department
& Town Planning Department
-2-
Vikasa Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Shri Arjun Ramesh
S/o Shri Ramesh,
Aged 21 years,
R/at No.5, Rajarajeshwari Layout,
Behind DRDO Phase II
Dooravaninagar,
Bengaluru-560016.
3. Shri Aditya Ramesh
S/o Ramesh,
Aged 21 years,
R/at No.5, Rajarajeshwari Layout,
Behind DRDO Phase II
Dooravaninagar,
Bengaluru-560016.
Both represented by mother and GPA Holder
Smt. Swarnalatha Ramesh,
Aged about 53 years,
W/o Sri. Ramesh,
R/at No.5, Rajarajeshwari Layout,
Behind DRDO Phase II
Dooravaninagar,
Bengaluru-560016.
...Respondents
(By Sri. S.Rajashekar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for R-1;
Sri. P.Raveendran, Advocate for R-2 & R-3)
***
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to call for records
and to set aside the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge dated 06.07.2022 passed in W.P.No.7436 of
2022 (LA) and be further pleased to dismiss the writ
petition and pass such other orders/directions as this
Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper considering the
facts and circumstances of the case together as to costs in
the interest of justice and equity.
-3-
This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, Chief Justice, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
On 22-12-2022, the appeal was placed before
this Court along with the application I.A.No.1/2022
seeking for condonation of delay.
2. Considering the submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellants, an emergent
notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3/writ
petitioners. Learned Additional Government Advocate
was directed to accept notice for respondent No.1 and
an interim order was passed by this Court.
3. Interlocutory Application - I.A.No.1/2022 is
filed for seeking condonatiaon of delay and the
reasons are assigned in the supporting affidavit,
particularly, in paragraphs 2 and 3. The reasons
relate to the administrative and procedural
formalities. In our opinion, the delay caused in filing
the appeal is explained with justifiable reasons. As
such, the application for condonation of delay is
allowed. Delay of 100 days in filing the appeal is
condoned.
4. The thrust of the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants in challenge to the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 06-07-2022
is that the direction of the learned Single Judge to the
Deputy Commissioner(Land Acquisition), BBMP, while
partly allowing the petition, to refer the claim to the
designated Judge, was a premature exercise.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that, admittedly, the prayers raised in the
writ petition including prayers No.2 and 3 also makes
a reference for the necessary formalities of the
provisions of law. The learned counsel submits that
unless an award is passed, the further exercise of
reference to the designated Judge cannot be
undertaken.
5. Our attention was invited to Section 64 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "the Act").
It is not in dispute that sub-Section (1) of Section 64
of the Act reads as under:
"64.Reference to Authority- (1) Any
person interested who has not accepted the
award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred
by the Collector for the determination of the
Authority, as the case may be, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land,
the amount of the compensation, the person to
whom it is payable, the rights of Rehabilitation
and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or
the apportionment of the compensation among
the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of
application, make a reference to the
appropriate Authority:
Provided further that where the Collector
fails to make such reference within the period
so specified, the applicant may apply to the
Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to
direct the Collector to make the reference to it
within a period of thirty days."
Sub-Section (1) of Section 64 of the Act
provides that when any person who has not accepted
the award, by way of a written application, submit to
the Collector for referring for determination of the
Authority in respect of measurement of the land,
amount of compensation, the person to whom it is
payable and the Collector shall make a reference to
the appropriate Authority within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of application. For
making an application under sub-Section (1) of
Section 64 of the Act, the pre-requisite is passing of
an award.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the Authority
has not passed any award. The writ petition filed by
the petitioners is premature. The learned Single
Judge, without considering sub-Section (1) of Section
64 of the Act has passed the impugned order. We are
of the opinion that the appeal needs to be partly
allowed and the appellants be permitted to take
appropriate steps as per the provisions of law to pass
an award.
6. Sri.P. Raveendran, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.2 and 3/writ petitioners submits that
let there be a time frame fixed for the appellants to
undertake the exercise of passing the award,
otherwise, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 will have to
wait for an indefinite period and the objective to
approach this Court would be frustrated.
7. Considering the submission of the learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/writ petitioners,
the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are
directed to take appropriate steps so as to pass an
award, needless to say by following the provisions of
law, as early as possible and not later than six
months from the date of the judgment of this Court.
After passing the award, the respondent Nos.2
and 3/writ petitioners are at liberty to make
necessary application taking recourse to Section 64
of the Act.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, no orders
are required to be passed in the pending applications.
The pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
