Karnataka High Court
Smt M Pushpamba vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 2 April, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
CRP No. 37 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 37 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT M PUSHPAMBA
D/O LT S MUDDAVEERAIAH
AGED 56 YEARS
R/A NO 93, OLD NO 16
SHANMUGAHANDA NILAYA
4TH BLOCK, 13TH AND 14TH CROSS
PEENYA VILLAGE, BANGALORE 560058.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, NO 3/2, 1ST CROSS
THIMMIAH BUILDING
3RD FLOOR, GANDHINAGARA
Digitally BENGALURU 560009.
signed by ...RESPONDENT
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location: (BY SRI. CHANNE GOWDA C., ADVOCATE)
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CPC,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
08.09.2022 PASSED IN LAC.NO.41/2011 BY THE LEARNED II
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AT
ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
CRP No. 37 of 2023
ORDER
1. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.41374 of 2010,
seeking for a direction to the Special Land Acquisition
Officer ("the SLAO") to refer the dispute between the
petitioner and respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein to the
Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore Rural, Bangalore.
2. In reply to said writ petition, the Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board ("the KIADB") filed statement of
objections, a copy of which is produced as Annexure 'D',
wherein it was stated as follows:
"7. It is submitted that if all the parties
have agreed for the rate of compensation
as per the package offered by the
Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation in full
and final settlement, then the same will
be deposited before the jurisdictional Civil
Court under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act only for adjudication of the
claims of the parties regarding entitlement
of compensation and apportionment of
compensation. If all the parties are not
willing to accept package then the general
award will be passed in accordance with
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
law. The award amount will be deposited
before the jurisdictional Civil Court by
referring the matter under Sections 30, 31
& 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for
adjudication in accordance with law."
3. On the basis of said statement of the KIADB, this
Court disposed of W.P. No.41374 of 2010 on 23.12.2010
in the following terms:
"ORDER
Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, perused the pleadings
and more appropriately Paragraph 7 of
the statement of objections that the
award amount will be deposited before
the Jurisdictional Civil Court by referring
the matter under Sections 30 & 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act for adjudication of
the claim in accordance with law, nothing
further survives for consideration in this
petition and is accordingly disposed of."
4. Pursuant to this order passed on 23.12.2010, the
petitioner filed a memo, as per Annexure 'F', which was
received by the SLAO on 12.01.2011. The Memo that was
filed reads as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
"In the writ petition W.P.No.41374/2010
(LA-KIADB) filed by the applicant seeking
direction to this Hon'ble Authority to refer
the matter to civil court, statement of
objections was filed on behalf of your
Hon'ble Authority also stating that the
award amount will be deposited before
the jurisdictional civil court by referring
the matter under Sections 30, 31 and 18
of the Land Acquisition Act for
adjudication. Taking note of the same the
Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of
the said writ petition on 23.12.2010.
Certified copy of the said order is
herewith produced.
WHEREFORE, it is most humbly
prayed that this Hon'ble Authority be
pleased to deposit the award amount
before the jurisdictional Civil Court by
referring the matter under sections 30,
31 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, in
the interest of justice and equity."
5. It is not in dispute that, as on the date of filing of
this Memo, an award was yet to be passed. However, the
fact remains that even before the award was passed, the
petitioner did make a request for referring the matter, not
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
only under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short "the LA Act"), but also under Section 18 of
this Act.
6. Despite this Memo, the Land Acquisition Officer
appears to have referred the matter only under Sections
30 and 31 of the LA Act.
7. The petitioner appeared in those proceedings and in
those proceedings, after the petitioner claimed that the
sum awarded was less, objections were filed by the KIADB
in which it was sought to be contended that a total
compensation Rs.3,12,40,688/- was awarded and the
petitioner had not filed an application under Section 18(1)
of the L.A.Act.
8. It was also contended that on 11.11.2011, the
petitioner had received the compensation by way of
consent, as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for
short "the KIAD Act") and, therefore, the petitioner was
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
not entitled to file the petition under Section 18 of the LA
Act.
9. The Trial Court accepted the said contention of the
KIADB and proceeded to reject the reference sought by
the petitioner under Section 18(2)(b) of the LA Act.
10. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed
the present revision petition.
11. In this petition, a Memo is filed today in which it is
stated that the contents of paragraph 4 of the judgment
passed in LAC No.41 of 2011 are factually incorrect and
they are actually relatable to claim of one
Mr.H.S.Somashekar.
12. It is also stated that the agreement referred to in the
objections were relatable to the agreement executed by
said Mr.H.S.Somshekar and not by the petitioner.
13. It is, therefore, clear that the decision of the Trial
Court on the basis of the averments made by the KIADB in
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
respect of another case pertaining to H.S.Somashekhar
would be untenable.
14. Consequentially, the impugned order cannot be
sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
15. Having regard to the fact that the matter has been
lingering for the past more than 13 years, in my view, it
would be appropriate to refer the dispute to the Civil Court
for consideration of the petitioner's claim for enhancement
of compensation and also for apportionment under
Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act.
16. The argument of the learned counsel for the KIADB
that no application was filed under Section 18 of the LA
Act cannot be accepted since the memo which is filed
before this Court indicates that even before the award was
passed the petitioner had sought reference under Section
18 of the LA Act to the Civil Court. Consequently, the said
objections are over-ruled.
NC: 2024:KHC:13454
17. The concerned Civil Court shall enter upon reference
and decide the claim of the petitioner as regards
enhancement and also regarding apportionment of
compensation after notifying all the parties interested.
18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RK
CT: SN
