Karnataka High Court
P Siraj Pasha vs The Principal Secretary And Ors on 7 August, 2024
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
WA No.200109 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.200109 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
P.SIRAJ PASHA
S/O LATE KHAJA MIYA,
@ BASHUMIYAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRIL,
R/O PREM TALKIES ROAD,
MANVI, TQ: MANVI,
DIST: RAICHUR.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
WA No.200109 of 2022
4. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
MANVI, TQ.MANVI,
DIST: RAICHUR - 584 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALHAR RAO K. AAG A/W
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT.RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO:
a) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
18.03.2020 IN WRIT PETITION NOS.205121/2018 AND
200147-48/2019 (LA-RES).
b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION OR ANY
OTHER ORDER LIKE NATURE DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO INITIATE THE LAND
ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN
LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT, ACT 2013 FOR HAVING USED THE SAID
LAND FOR THE REHABILITATION OF PERSONS EFFECTED
IN FLOOD WITHOUT PAYING ANY COMPENSATION AND
PAY THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS PER LAW IN
RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.12/2 MEASURING 22
GUNTAS, SY.NO.12/3/1 MEASURING 01 ACRE 12
GUNTAS AND SY.NO.12/04 MEASURING 12 GUNTAS,
TOTALLY MEASURING 02 ACRES 15 GUNTAS, ALL
SITUATED AT MANVI TOWN, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR,
WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS PROVIDED UNDER THE
SAID ACT.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
WA No.200109 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The appeal is filed by the petitioner [rank of parties
is as referred to in the writ proceedings] who had
approached the learned Single Judge seeking for issuance
of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities
to initiate land acquisition proceedings under Section 19
(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 [for short, 'the Act'] for having used the petitioner's
land for rehabilitation of persons affected in the flood. The
petitioner had also sought for compensation as per law
with all statutory benefits as available under the statute by
considering representation of the petitioner at Annexure-L.
The said writ petition having been disposed of with a
direction by the learned Single Judge directing the
respondents to pay the land price computed in accordance
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
with the Guideline Values for the relevant year 2004-05
and with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within
three months. It was further stipulated that if the entire
payment was not made within the said period, the
answering respondents were to pay interest at the rate of
24% per annum instead of 12% per annum. There was
also a direction that if higher component of interest is
paid, was to be recovered from the erring officials
concerned. The said order of the learned Single Judge has
been assailed in the present appeal.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank
before the learned Single Judge.
3. The facts being that, the land in Sy.No.12/2
measuring 22 guntas, Sy.No.12/3/1 measuring 1 acre 12
guntas and Sy.No.12/04 measuring 12 guntas, in all
measuring 2 acres 15 guntas, situated at Manvi taluk,
Raichur district belonging to the petitioner was given for
the purpose of rehabilitation of victims of 2004-05 flood.
It is not in dispute that ownership of the property belongs
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
to the petitioner. Facts as narrated in the pleadings would
also make out a case that the petitioner had the revenue
entries mutated in his name. It is made out from the facts
as pleaded that in the year 2004-05 due to heavy rain and
flood, about 97 families had been shifted to land at the
southern side of the market yard of APMC. The Municipal
Authority taking note of the plight of such persons had
passed a resolution produced at Annexure-F dated
26.02.2011 whereby it was resolved that the land in the
survey numbers belonging to the petitioner being required
for rehabilitation, the Government is to consider purchase
of the land and pay compensation.
4. The petitioner not having received
compensation eventually in the year 2012, filed Writ
Petition Nos.80211/2012 & 80456-457/2012 seeking
issuance of direction to the respondent-authorities to
direct initiation of acquisition proceedings for payment of
compensation for having used lands belonging to him.
The said writ petitions came to be disposed of reserving
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate representation
to the concerned authority and if such representation was
filed within two weeks, same was to be considered in
accordance with law within a period of two months. It is
the case of the petitioner that such direction not having
been complied with, the petitioner was forced to approach
this Court once again by way of W.P.Nos.205121/2018 &
200147-48/2019 seeking for a direction to the
respondent-authorities to initiate acquisition proceedings.
The said writ petition has been disposed of directing the
respondents to pay petitioner the land price computed in
accordance with Guideline Values for the relevant year
2004-05 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within
three months and in the event of delay, to pay interest at
the rate of 24% per annum. The said order, as is
observed above, is in challenge before this Court.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the
order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous insofar as
the relief sought for in the writ petition has not been
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
adjudicated and direction for determination of market
value with interest, according to the petitioner is not a
sufficient relief. It is further submitted that the
determination of value of the land is also dependent upon
the potentiality of the present land which falls within Manvi
Town Panchayat area. It is submitted that the direction in
the earlier writ petition in W.P.Nos.80211/2012 and
80456-457/2012 was to consider the representation of the
petitioner that was to be filed before the appropriate
authority. It is submitted that the plea of the petitioner
that is made out in W.P.Nos.205121/2018 & 200147-
48/2019 was only for consideration of his representation
at Annexure-L which was to consider acquisition in terms
of the Act and that not having been considered, learned
Single Judge ought not to have disposed of the writ
petition with a direction which is ambiguous insofar as
fixing the market value of the land. Various other
contentions have been raised seeking for appropriate
direction for compensation on the basis of market value
determined in terms of the Land Acquisition Act.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
Accordingly, learned counsel Sri Manvendra Reddy
appearing for the petitioner in the present appeal has
sought for setting aside of the order in the writ appeal and
a direction in terms of the prayer made in the writ
proceedings.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the State vehemently contends that the petitioner had
given up his land voluntarily in terms of an agreement and
in light of such agreement that was executed, the
petitioner is now estopped from seeking for any relief
beyond that which what was granted by the learned Single
Judge. It is contended that the learned Single Judge in
fact has considered the case of the petitioner and issued
direction for payment of compensation which should
address the grievance of the petitioner. It is further
contended that when the petitioner has himself come
forward to sell his land to the Government, the question of
seeking acquisition at this point of time would not arise. It
is also stated that pursuant to the order of the learned
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
Single Judge, the Deputy Commissioner, on 04.08.2020
has considered the aspect in detail and has directed
purchase of the land at the rate of Rs.6,93,500/- and the
petitioner not having challenged such order that is passed
after the order passed in the writ petition, cannot now
seek to make out a different case. Learned Additional
Advocate General further submits that the tax payers'
money must be utilized and disbursed in an appropriate
manner and the claim of the petitioner herein is exorbitant
and cannot be considered.
7. Heard both sides.
8. It is not in dispute that the land belongs to the
petitioner. That the said land has been made use for
rehabilitating the flood victims also is not in dispute.
However, it is the specific assertion of the State that the
petitioner had voluntarily given up his land in which there
has been rehabilitation. The assertion of the petitioner
that the rehabilitation of the victims of flood has been
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
made out of the Government funds in land belonging to
the petitioner is not controverted.
9. It is noticed that in the statement of objections
filed by the Municipal Authority before the learned Single
Judge it would indicate that there have been effort
between the Municipal Authority and the Government for
acquisition of said land. The statement of objections of
the Municipal Authority at paras-5 to 8 read as here
under:
"5. The chairman of respondent No.4 called a
general body meeting on 26.6.2011 in the said
meeting discussing the humanity of petitioner letting
his lands to flood families affected in the year 2004-
05 for the resettlement of effect families. The
proposal will has to be given to the government for
the acquisition of his lands and pay the appropriate
compensation and same was unanimously resolved
in the meeting as per Annexure-F.
6. It is true that petitioner has approached this
Hon'ble Court by way of W.P.No.80211/2012 -
80456 - 457/2012 and said writ petition were
disposed of on 31.01.2012 reserving the liberty to
the petitioner to file an appropriate representation
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
to the concerned authority. In the said writ
proceedings though the respondent No. 4 is the
party but the petitioner himself dispensed the notice
for the respondent No.4 that is respondent No.3 in
earlier Writ petition as said above. Thus the
respondent No.4 is not a party to the writ
proceedings and said order is not binding on the
respondent No.4.
7. That as per the direction issued by this Hon'ble
Court the respondent No.2 has written a letter to
the respondent No.4 seeking information in respect
of land of the petitioner which was let out for flood
effected families and also information regarding
resolution No.304 in this regard the respondent
No.4 has given a detail report stating that land of
the petitioner has to be acquired and give a proper
compensation and said report has been forwarded
to the respondent No. 3.
8. That the respondent No.1 to 3 are acquiring body
they have to take a policy decision in this matter
and grant a compensation amount to petitioner for
land which utilized for rehabilitation the flood effect
families. It is submitted that lands of the petitioner
not situated in the heart of city of Manvi and said
land has not got any N.A. potentiality."
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
However, such efforts by the Municipal Authority has not
resulted in the State granting compensation, which
according to the petitioner was in consonance with the
market value.
10. It is to be noticed that no doubt there is an
agreement relied upon by the State to the effect that the
petitioner had made an offer for conveyance of his land to
the State for the purpose as made out. Perused the said
agreement. It is to be noticed that the agreement, a copy
of which is produced, bears only a signature of the
petitioner and insofar as the State is concerned, though is
stated to be in the name of the Governor, however, there
is no indication of the authentication of the stand of the
State authorities by affixing the signature of the concerned
official representing the State. Perusal of the said
agreement would also indicate that it is only an offer made
by the petitioner.
11. What requires to be noticed is, there may have
been negotiations regarding price/compensation as no
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
conclusion having been arrived at, the petitioner was
constrained to approach this Court by filing writ petition at
the first instance in W.P.Nos.80211/2012 & 80456-
457/2012. The said writ petitions were specifically filed
seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to the
respondent - authorities to direct the respondents to
initiate acquisition proceedings for paying compensation in
light of the lands of the petitioner having been utilized.
The said writ petitions came to be disposed off with the
direction at para-5 which reads as follows:
"5. These petitions are disposed of reserving the
liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate
representation to the concerned authority. If one
such representation is filed within two weeks from
today, the same shall be considered in accordance
with law and within an outer limit of two months
from the date of its receipt."
12. The said writ petition having been disposed of
in January, 2012 and petitioner's grievance obviously not
having been considered, petitioner once again has
approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.205121/2018 &
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
200147-48/2019. The prayer (a) made in W.P.Nos.
205121/2018 & 200147-48/2019 reads as follows:
"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or direction or any
other order like nature directing the respondents
authorities to initiate the land acquisition proceedings
U/s. 19(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement, Act 2013 for having used the said land
for the rehabilitation of persons effected in flood
without paying any compensation and pay the
compensation amount as per law, with all statutory
benefits provided under the said Act by considering
the representation of the petitioner vide
Annexure-L."
13. The above prayer would reveal that the
petitioner has also sought for consideration of his
representation at Annexure-L. Perusal of the
representation at Annexure-L would reveal that the
petitioner had sought for payment of compensation by
fixing the market value of the land at the rate of
Rs.19,15,000/- per acre within two months in terms of the
direction passed in W.P.No.80211/2012. The petitioner's
grievance not having been addressed, the petition in
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
W.P.No.205121/2018 came to be eventually disposed of
with the direction as follows:
"In the above circumstances, these writ petitions
succeed; a writ of mandamus issues to the
respondents 1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner the land
price computed in accordance with the Guideline
Values for the relevant year 2004-05 with interest at
the rate of 12% p.a. within three months; if the
entire payment is not made within the said period,
the answering respondents shall pay interest at the
rate of 24% p.a. instead of 12% p.a. from the
beginning, and this higher component of the interest
shall be recovered from the erring officials
concerned."
14. Pursuant to the order of the learned Single
Judge, it is the case of the State that the Deputy
Commissioner has considered the direction and disposed
of the direction by passing an order on 04.08.2020. The
order passed on 04.08.2020 of the Deputy Commissioner
reads as follows:
""¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «ªÀj¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå
GZÀÒ£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå jmï Cfð 205121/2018 &
200147-48/2019 (LA-RES) gÀ DzÉñÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-03-2020 gÀ
¥ÀæPÁgÀ ²æà ¹gÁeï ¥Á±Á gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ¤é UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.12 (22
UÀÄAmÉ), ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.12/3/1 (1 JPÀgÉ 21 UÀÄAmÉ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.12/4
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
(12 UÀÄAmÉ) MlÄÖ 2 JPÀgÉ 15 UÀÄAmÉAiÀÄ d«Ää£À ¨sÀÆ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ
ºÁUÀÆ §rØ ªÉÆvÀÛ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.693500.00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£À« ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ
¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¤¢ü¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤Ãr DzÉò¹zÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï d«Ää£À°è ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉUÉ SÁ° ¸ÀܼÀªÀÅ
PÀÆqÁ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ EzÀÄÝ ¨sÀÆ«Ä Rjâ £ÀAvÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹
ºÀzÀÄݧ¸ÀÄÛ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À« vÁ®ÆèPÀÄgÀªÀjUÉ
DzÉò¹zÉ. ºÀzÀÄݧ¸ÀÄÛ ¤UÀ¢ü £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ EgÀĪÀ SÁ°
eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ PÀ§ÓUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ªÀÄÄSÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÀÄgÀ¸À¨sÉ
ªÀiÁ£À« EªÀjUÉ DzÉò¹zÉ".
15. Obviously not being satisfied with the outcome
of the direction passed by the learned Single Judge
culminating in the order of the Deputy Commissioner,
present writ petition has been filed on the grounds raised
as noticed in the narration of facts. It must be noticed
that the right to property, though not being a fundamental
right, is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Such right to property cannot be
taken away without adequate compensation. Where
certain efforts having been made regarding fixation of
price and petitioner not finding it to be reflective of the
market value of the property, it was for the petitioner to
either accept the offer of the State or to claim
compensation in terms of the statutory right available in
the event acquisition process is followed. The dispute not
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
having been resolved regarding price, petitioner also not
being satisfied with the order of the Deputy Commissioner
pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, has
decided that it would be appropriate redressal of his
grievance only if compensation is calculated after the
process of acquisition as sought for before the learned
Single Judge. It may not be stated that by his conduct
petitioner has waived any such right for seeking just and
fair compensation. Right to compensation on the premise
of his right to property under Article 300A cannot be
lightly dealt with by granting of pittance of compensation
not reflective of market value as on the prevalent date.
Whether the price offered by the Deputy Commissioner is
reflective of the market price is also a disputed question
which cannot be determined in the present proceedings.
The appropriate manner of dealing with such fact situation
is only to relegate the State to have resort to land
acquisition proceedings as may be appropriate. It is not in
dispute that those who have resettled in the petitioner's
land have been, in the words of the State, victims of the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
flood. If that were to be so, it is the duty of the State to
rehabilitate them and having utilized the land of the
petitioner now it cannot be stated that the petitioner's
interests can be dealt with lightly by paying compensation
which the State considers is his due. It must be noticed
that any order passed on the writ side by this Court
relating to compensation cannot be considered to be a
substitute for calculation of compensation as per law in the
event State were to take property of a citizen in
accordance with scheme of compensation under the Land
Acquisition Act.
16. The assertion made by the State that the land
was voluntarily given by the petitioner cannot have the
effect of depriving the petitioner of compensation as per
law and such compensation can be determined properly
only in accordance with the scheme of the Land Acquisition
Act. The offer of the petitioner for giving up his land could
have been taken and accepted by the State to his
satisfaction if compensation was paid at a market value
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
which was acceptable to the petitioner. Perhaps if the
order of the Deputy Commissioner had reflected market
value of the land, he may not have instituted the present
writ appeal. Clearly the facts would reveal that the
petitioner has filed the writ appeal only after the order of
the learned Single Judge culminating in the order of the
Deputy Commissioner. It is relevant to note that the order
of the Deputy Commissioner having been passed on
04.08.2020, the writ appeal was filed in the year 2022.
17. Accordingly, we find that the order of the
learned Single Judge does not result in addressing the
abridgment of his right under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Though relief has been granted by
the learned Single Judge therein the compensation offered
not having been accepted by the petitioner, it is his
assertion of the legitimate rights under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India in light of deprivation of his property,
by seeking to be recompensed in terms of compensation
determined under the scheme of Land Acquisition Act.
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5782-DB
18. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. The
order of the learned Single Judge is set aside.
Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to initiate
appropriate proceedings as per law and the reference to
appropriate proceedings is in specific 'land acquisition
proceedings' as is applicable under the law in prevalence
and conclude such proceedings at the earliest and pay
compensation as per law. Such proceedings are to be
initiated and completed within a period not later than six
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
In light of the disposal of the writ appeal, the deposit
made before this Court by the State is permitted to be
withdrawn by the State.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SWK
Ct;Vk
