Karnataka High Court

Veerupaxappa S/O Solabanna ... vs The Commissioner on 4 January, 2023

Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar

                           -1-




                                    WP No. 102303 of 2022


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
       WRIT PETITION NO. 102303 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:

1.     SOLABANNA,
       S/O REVANSIDDAPPA PATTANAD
       SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1(A) VEERUPAXAPPA,
     S/O SOLABANNA PATTANAD,
     AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE.

1(B) SANGAPPA,
     S/O SOLABANNA PATTANAD,
     AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

1(C) VEERABHADRAPPA,
     S/O SOLABANNA PATTANAD,
     AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE.

1(D) SMT.NEELAWWA,
     W/O VEERABHADRAPPA NARABOLI,
     AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER.

1(E)   SMT.SAROJA,
       W/O RAVINDRANATH CHAKRASALI,
       AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER.

2.     SHANKARAPPA,
       S/O REVANASIDDAPPA PATTANAD,
       AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.

3.     RUDRAPPA,
       S/O RAVANASIDDAPPA PATTANAD
       AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.
                            -2-




                                   WP No. 102303 of 2022


4.     MALAKAJAPPA,
       S/O REVANASIDDAPPA PATTANAD,
       AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS.

5.     SMT.MALLAWWA,
       W/O SHARANAPPA KUMBAR,
       AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOMEMAKER.

       ALL ARE R/O NAVANAGAR,
       BAGALKOTE, TQ & DIST: BAGALKOTE.

       THE PETITIONER NO.3 IS
       POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
       OF THE OTHER PETITIONERS.
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE COMMISSIONER,
     UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
     BAGALKOTE.

2.   THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR,
     UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
     BAGALKOTE.

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     BAGALKOTE.

4.  THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
    UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
    BAGALKOTE.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, (A)
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS NO.4 CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER U/S 28A OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT,
1894 IN VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 21-01-2018; (B) QUASH
                                   -3-




                                           WP No. 102303 of 2022


THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4
DATED 01.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

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

                              ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following

reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents No.4 to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in vide Annexure-E dated 21-01-2018;

(b) Quash the endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 dated 01.09.2020 vide Annexure-G.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on

record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the petition and referring to the material on record,

learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to the

order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court under

identical circumstances in respect of the land covered under the

WP No. 102303 of 2022

very same notification in the case of Mohammad Iqbal and

others V/s The Commissioner and others,

W.P.No.104568/2022 dated 23.11.2022 in order to point out

that whilst this Court directed the applications filed by the said

petitioners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

to be kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeals preferred by

the other land-losers, this Court also permitted the said

petitioners to withdraw 50% of the enhanced compensation. It

is therefore submitted that the present petition in respect of

the petitioners who are also covered by the very same

notification which was subject matter of W.P.No.104568/2022

also deserves to be disposed off in terms of the said order.

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that

there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, in Mohammad Iqbal case (supra), this Court has

held as under:

"This petition is filed seeking for a direction to the 4th respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioners for redetermination of the

WP No. 102303 of 2022

compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. It is not in dispute that compensation in respect of similarly situated lands has been enhanced and as against the order passed by the Civil Court, an appeal has been preferred before this Court and an interim order is also granted subject to the State depositing 50% of the amount. It is also not in dispute that the persons who have secured a higher compensation have also been permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation deposited by the State.

3. Learned AGA submitted that since an appeal is pending against the enhanced compensation, it would be inappropriate to re- determine the award under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. He also submits that the petitioners cannot, in law, file a 2nd application for redetermination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, since in the event, this Court modifies the compensation awarded a fresh application will have to be made. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharatsing Gulabsing Jakhad and Ors Vs State of Maharastra and others reported in (2018) 11 Supreme Court Cases.

WP No. 102303 of 2022

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that in cases where an appeal against the grant of enhanced of compensation is pending, the applications filed U/sec.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act would have to be kept in abeyance.

5. In view of the same, the State shall keep the applications filed by the petitioners U/sec.28-A of the Land Acquisition Act in abeyance.

6. However, in view of the fact that in the other cases in which compensation has been enhanced, the claimants therein have been permitted to withdraw 50% of the enhanced compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer shall also pay the petitioners 50% of the enhanced compensation to the petitioner as has been permitted in the connected appeals.

7. On disposal of the appeals by the State challenging the enhancement, the Land Acquisition Officer shall proceed to redetermine the compensation as requested by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The amounts paid under this order shall be taken into account at the time of redetermination.

8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of."

6. As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by

this Court, the application filed by the petitioners in the said

WP No. 102303 of 2022

petition, which are identical to the applications filed by the

present petitioner/s under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 have been directed to be kept in abeyance till

disposal of the appeals filed by the other land-losers. In my

consideration, said judgment and order passed in

W.P.No.104568/2022 is directly and squarely applicable to the

facts of the instant case which deserves to be disposed off in

terms of the said order. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER i. The petition is disposed off in terms of

Mohammed Iqbal and others V/s The

Commissioner and others,

W.P.No.104568/2022.

ii. Respondent No.4/SLAO is directed to keep the

said applications filed by the petitioners under

Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

in abeyance and take up the same for

consideration and disposal of pending appeals

by the other land-losers. Meanwhile without

prejudice to the rights and contentions of the

parties, respondent No.4/SLAO is directed to

WP No. 102303 of 2022

pay the present petitioners also 50% of the

enhanced compensation as expeditiously as

possible.