Basanagouda S/O. Shankargouda ... vs The Project Director
2023 Latest Caselaw 930 Kant

                            -1-




                                        WP No. 103952 of 2014



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE
      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
       WRIT PETITION NO. 103952 OF 2014 (LA-RES)


BETWEEN:

1     BASANAGOUDA S/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL,
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

1A. VINODKUMAR S/O.BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
    AGE-58 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,

1B. VIDHYAVATI /O.SURESH KAMATE,
    AGE- 52 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEHOLD.

1C. CHITAKALA W/O.MAHANTESH KAMATE,
    AGE- 48 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,

1D. PARIMALA W/O.PRITHVIRAJ DR,
    AGE-45 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE,

1E.   MALTESH S/O.BASANAGOUDA PATIL,
      AGE-43 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE,

      ALL ARE R/O.SHRI CHANNABASAVA LAYOUT,
      KUDALA SANGAMA CROSS, NH.NO.13,
      NANDANOOR, TAL-HUNGUND, DIST-BELAGAVI.

                                             ...PETITIONERS
       (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
      NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY,
      NEAR TOOL NAKA, DHARWAD.
                           -2-




                                      WP No. 103952 of 2014



2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
     FOR THE LAND ACQUISITION,
     NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 13,
     HUNGUND, BAGALKOT.

3.   PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
     GRAM PANCHAYAT, BELGAL,
     TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

4.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     NATIONAL HIGHWAY, BIJAPUR.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOS.1 AND 2)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4-SERVED)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 03/12/2013 PASSED IN BY RESPONDENT NO.4
VIDE ANNEXURE-K BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND
ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1
AND 2 DISBURSE THE UN-DISPUTED AMOUNT IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND
ISSUE DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND
IN THE AID MAIN RELIEF SOUGHT FOR.


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




                                             WP No. 103952 of 2014



                            ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the

impugned order at Annexure-K dated 03.12.2013 passed

by the 4th respondent and for consequential directions to

them and for other reliefs.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and

perused the material on record.

3. Respondent No.3/Grampanchayat has been served

with notice of this petition and has chosen to remain

unrepresented and has not contested this petition.

4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the petition and referring to the material on

record, the learned counsel for the petitioners invites my

attention to the award dated 20.05.2011 in order to point

out that in terms of the said award, compensation was

directed to be paid in favour of the petitioner-

Basanagouda S/o.Shankargouda Patil by respondent No.2.

Subsequently, since representation submitted by the

WP No. 103952 of 2014

petitioner-Basanagouda to the 2nd respondent to disburse

the compensation amount was not complied with by him,

the petitioner-Basanagouda approached this Court in Writ

Petition No.66239/2011, which was disposed off by this

Court vide final order dated 24.10.2013 directing the

respondents to release the amount in favour of the

petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Subsequently, the petitioner-Basanagouda submitted a

representation dated 12.11.2013 to the respondents, who

called upon the petitioner to furnish all relevant

documents including No Objection Certificate (NOC) from

the 3rd respondent-Grampanchayat. It is the grievance of

the petitioners that despite submitting all documents, the

4th respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order

purporting to amend the award thereby withdrawing the

compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner which is

illegal, contrary and without jurisdiction or authority of law

and contrary to the provisions of the National Highway

WP No. 103952 of 2014

Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') and as such the

petitioner is before this Court by way of the present

petition. During pendency of this petition petitioner-

Basanagouda Patil died on 11.12.2019, by this Court order

dated 10.02.2021 his legal representatives are came on

record as petitioner Nos.1A to 1E.

5. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 4 in addition to reiterating the various

contentions urged in the statement of objections submits

that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ

Petition No.66329/2011 (LA-RES) dated 24.10.2013

referred to supra, the respondent No.3/Grampanchayath

also submitted an application putting forth its claim over

the subject land, as a result of which, the 4th respondent

proceeded to pass an amended award dated 03.12.2013

(Annexure-R5) and consequently, the impugned

endorsement/order passed by the 4th respondent pursuant

to the amended award is correct, legal and proper and

WP No. 103952 of 2014

does not warrant interference by this Court in the present

petition.

6. I have been anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and perused the material on record. The

following point arises for consideration in the present

petition.

(a) Whether respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are

entitled to amend the award dated 20.05.2011

by passing the impugned amended award dated

03.12.2013?

7. In the context, it is relevant to note that the

subject lands are acquired under the provisions of the Act,

1956, to which, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 do not apply except to the limited extent of

awarding compensation in terms of the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and

Another Vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC

648. However, a perusal of the remaining provisions of

the National Highway Act, 1956 including the Section 3H in

WP No. 103952 of 2014

relation to passing of an award and payment of

compensation will clearly indicate that there is no

provision much less in provision similar to Section 13(A) of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which permits correction /

amendment of the clerical or arithmetical mistakes or

errors in the award. Under these circumstances, in the

absence of any statutory provision in the National Highway

Act similar or identical to Section 13(A) of the Land

Acquisition Act, I am of the considered opinion that

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 did not have jurisdiction or

authority of law to amend the award dated 20.05.2011

passed in favour of the petitioner and consequently the

amended award dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure-R5) as well

as the impugned order Annexure-K deserves to be

quashed.

8. Insofar as the contention of respondent Nos.1, 2

and 4 that the award was amended at the instance of the

3rd respondent/ Grampanchayat who put forth a claim over

the subject land on the ground that it situated in a buffer

WP No. 103952 of 2014

zone. It is relevant to state that even prior to putting

forth of the said claim, the Grampanchayat had issued no

objection certificate (NOC) at Annexure-J dated

21.11.2013 by specifically referring Writ Petition

No.663920/2011, wherein this Court had directed

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 to pay compensation in favour

of the petitioners. Under these circumstances, merely

because since respondent No.3/Grampanchayat

subsequently put forth a claim dated 27.11.2013

(Annexure-R4), in the light of the earlier NOC issued by

the 3rd respondent/Grampanchayat coupled with inherent

lack of jurisdiction on the part of respondent nos.1, 2 and

4 to amend/modify award or to issue the impugned

endorsement/ order, I am of the considered opinion that

the said communication/letter dated 27.11.2013 submitted

by the 3rd respondent/Grampanchayat to respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 4 could not have been made basis by them

to pass the amended award dated 03.12.2013 Annexure-

WP No. 103952 of 2014

R5 nor issued impugned endorsement which deserves to

be quashed on this ground alone also.

9. As stated supra, in the light of the positive

directions issued by this Court in Writ Petiton

No.66239/2011 upholding claim of the petitioners to their

right to receive compensation for the acquired land and

the specific directions issued by this Court to respondent

Nos.1, 2 and 4 to pay compensation in favour of the

petitioner-Basanagouda, I am of the considered opinion

that the 4th respondent committed an error in issuing the

impugned endorsement/order at Annexure-K dated

03.12.2013 which deserves to be quashed.

10. In the result, I pass the following :

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-K dated 03.12.2013 as well as amended award at Annexure-R-5 dated 03.12.2013 are hereby quashed.

- 10 -

WP No. 103952 of 2014

are hereby directed to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner Nos.1A to 1E who are the legal representatives of petitioner-Basanagouda who died during pendency of this petition, in terms of the award at Annexure-R1 dated 20.05.2011 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

SD JUDGE

CKK