Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2023
Bench: Alok Aradhe Byaaj, Arhj
-1-
WA No.934 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT APPEAL NO.934 OF 2018 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CHOWDAIAH ROAD
Digitally KUMARA PARK WEST
signed by BANGALORE-560 003
RUPA V REPRESENTED BY M.S.N. BABU
Location: (LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER).
High Court ...APPELLANT
of Karnataka
(BY SRI. M.V. CHARATI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN
DEVELOPMENT VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI. K.M. NARAYANA
S/O LATE K. MUNINANJAPPA
R/AT NO.115/28, 5TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, KATRIGUPPE
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BANGALORE-560 085.
3. SRI. K.M. RAMA MURTHY
S/O LATE K. MUNINANJAPPA
R/AT NO.436, GANIGAS STREET
KENGERI, BANGALORE-560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
WA No.934 of 2018
(BY SRI. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVICE OF NOTICE ACCEPTED BY PAPER PUBLICATION
R3 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
7/10/2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION 42174-175/2017 [BDA] AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is directed
against the order dated 07.10.2017 passed by learned
Single Judge, by which the writ petition preferred by the
respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the land
owners' for short) has been allowed and the Bangalore
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Authority' for short) has been directed to grant equal
extent of land measuring 22 guntas of similar value
having similar potentiality in the nearby locality or to
pay compensation in respect of land alleging the same
to have been acquired under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency Under The Land
WA No.934 of 2018
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act' for short).
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly
stated are that the respondents No.2 and 3 are the
owners of land measuring 22 guntas of land of
Sy.No.90/4 situated in Valagerahalli Village, Bangalore
South (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule land' for
short). The authority was in need of several other lands
including the schedule land for formation of a layout
viz., 'Gnana bharathi Layout'. Thereupon the process of
acquisition of land under the Bangalore Development
authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'
for short) was set in motion. A preliminary notification
dated 26.01.1989 was issued. The land owners filed an
objection to the said preliminary notification,. However,
a final notification under Section 19(1) of the Act was
issue don 19.01.1994. It is the case of the Authority
that an award was passed on 23.03.1996 by which
WA No.934 of 2018
compensation payable to the land was determined. It is
also the case of the authority that the possession of the
land in question was taken over on 20.04.1996.
However, the compensation was not paid to the land
owners. Thereupon the land owners filed a petition
seeking a direction to the respondents either to pay
compensation together with solatium in terms of 2013
Act or in the alternative to allot the land of similar value
having similar potentiality in a nearby locality. The
Learned Single Judge by an order dated 06.10.2017
inter alia held that the action of the authority in
unilaterally depositing the amount of compensation
before the civil court is not justified. It was further held
that no notice under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
1894 Act' for short) was issued to the land owners. The
Learned Single Judge therefore, concluded that the right
of land owners guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India has been infringed. The Learned
WA No.934 of 2018
Single Judge has therefore, directed the authority to
grant equal extent of land measuring 22 guntas of
similar value and similar potentiality in a nearby locality
or to pay the amount of compensation under 2013 Act.
In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has
been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the Authority while
referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in 'BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS', 2022 SCC
ONLINE SC 69 submitted that the learned Single Judge
ought to have appreciated the provisions of 2013 Act
have no application to the acquisition proceeding
initiated under the provisions 1976 Act and therefore,
the learned Single Judge erred in directing the
appellants to pay compensation in respect of the
schedule land under the 2013 Act. It is however, fairly
WA No.934 of 2018
submitted that the land held by the land owners has
been utilized by the authority.
4. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant as well as the
submission made by learned Additional Government
Advocate and have perused the record. There is no
material on record to indicate that any notice under
Section 12(2) of the 1894 Act was issued or was served
on the land owners. The action of the authority in
unilaterally depositing the amount of compensation
interest on the aforesaid amount on 20.12.2009 without
complying the mandate contained in Section 31 of the
1894 Act is also rightly been held to be not justified by
the learned Single Judge. The action of the authority in
utilizing the land held by the land owners and in not
making payment of compensation to the owners of the
land constitutes an infringement of constitutional right
guaranteed to the owners of the land under Article
WA No.934 of 2018
300A of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND ANOTHER supra in para 24 has held as under:
24. In view of the above, the Learned
Judge of the High Court in Sri. Sudhakar
Hegde (supra) was not justified in holding that
the provisions of LA Act that are made
applicable to the BDA Act are in the nature of
legislation by reference. The learned Judge
has also erred in holding that in view of the
repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013
Act, the corresponding provisions of 2013 Act
would regulate acquisition proceedings under
the BDA Act and that this would include
determination of compensation in accordance
with 2013 Act. It is hereby clarified that since
LA Act has been incorporated in to the BDA
Act so far as they are applicable the provisions
of 2013 Act are not applicable for the
acquisitions made under the BDA Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the learned single
Judge of the High Court in Sri Sudhakr Hegde
WA No.934 of 2018
(supra) and other connected matters is hereby
overruled.
Thus, it is evident that the provisions of 2013 Act
have no application to the proceedings initiated for
acquisition of the land under the 1976 Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge erred
in directing the Authority to make payment of
compensation in respect of the schedule land treating
the same to have been acquired under 2013 Act. The
direction contained in the impugned order to pay
compensation in terms of 2013 Act is set aside. The
authority is directed to tender the amount of
compensation to the owners of land along with interest
and solatium as well as the amount admissible under
other statutory heads under 1894 Act to the owners of
the land within a period of two weeks from today failing,
which the entire amount of compensation shall carry
interest as per Section 34 of 1894 Act.
WA No.934 of 2018
To the aforesaid extent, the order passed by
learned Single Judge is modified.
In the result, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
