Karnataka High Court
Parappa Basalingappa Hosamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
WP No. 103011 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 103011 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PARAPPA BASALINGAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
2. KARAKAPPA MALLESHAPPA ANGADI
AGE 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
3. KARAKAPPA BASALINGAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
4. DRAKSHAYANI SANGAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
5. SANGAPPA BASALINGAPPA HOSAMANI
AGE 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
SUJATA 6. JATTEPPA YAMANAPPA KADIWAL
SUBHASH AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
PAMMAR
7. VEERABHADRAPPA BASAPPA HOSAMANI
Digitally signed by AGE 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
SUJATA SUBHASH
PAMMAR
Date: 2024.01.21 8. MOHAMMADASAB AMINSAB HALAKAWATAGI
23:10:25 -0800
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
9. ASANGEPPA SAJEEVAPPA TALAWAR
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
10. SHIVAPPA HANAMAPPA WALIKAR
AGE 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
WP No. 103011 of 2022
11. SANGAPPA RAMAPPA KHAJAGAL
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
12. MALLAPPA MOHANAPPA KHAJAGAL
AGE 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
13. MANGALAPPA MOHANAPPA KHAJAGAL
AGE 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
14. SHREESHAIL MOHANAPPA KHAJAGAL
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
ALL ARE R/O VARAGODADINI VILLAGE
TQ. HUNAGUND
DIST. BAGALKOT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ.S.BYAKOD., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
VISHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU.
2. THE REVENUE SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER
L.A.Q, U.K.P NAVANAGAR
BAGALKOT
5. THE COMMISSIONER
LAQ, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
WP No. 103011 of 2022
UKP, NAVANGAR, BAGALKOT
6. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
UKP, NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)
THIS WP UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT NO.LAQ.SR-10/2011-12/791, LAW.SR-10/2011-
12/792, LAQ.SR-10/2011-12/793, LAQ.SR-10/2011-12/794 LAQ.SR-
10/2011-12/795, LAQ.SR-10/2011-12/796, LAQ.SR-10/2011-
12/797, LAQ.SR-03/2011-12/798, LAQ.SR-03/2011-12/799, LAQ.SR-
03/2011-12/800, LAQ.SR-03/2011-12/801, LAQ.SR-03/2011-
12/802, LAQ.SR-03/2011-12/803, LAQ.SR-03/2011-12/804, DATED
16-2-2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 VIDE ANNEXURE-H1
TO H14.
B. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 TO PASS AWARD UNDER RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 AS PER THE HON
BLE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
VS MANOHARLAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
WP No. 103011 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners are the owners of the following
properties:
Sl.No. V.P.C. No. Village
1 42C Kengalkadapatti
2 52 Kengalkadapatti
3 43c Kengalkadapatti
4 147 Kengalkadapatti
5 43/b Kengalkadapatti
6 37d Kengalkadapatti
7 42b Kengalkadapatti
8 5c Varagodadinni
9 21 Varagodadinni
10 20b Varagodadinni
11 9b Varagodadinni
12 16a Varagodadinni
13 16a Varagodadinni
14 16c Varagodadinni
2. The lands were acquired for the purpose of
Narayanpur Dam by issuing preliminary notification dated
04.11.2011 culminating in passing of an award dated
31.12.2013 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into effect
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
on 01.01.2014. In light of the proviso contained in Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013, the petitioners filed WP No.109182-
109206/2016 and connected petitions for a direction to the
respondent to determine the compensation in light of proviso 2
Section 24 Act, 2013. This Court vide order dated 09.12.2018
directed the respondents to redetermine the compensation in
light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
WA No.100864-866/2014 and connected matters disposed off
on 23.03.2015. In pursuance of the direction issued by this
Court, respondent No.6 issued the impugned endorsement at
annexure-H series stating that the compensation cannot be
redetermined under the Act, 2013, since the petitioners have
received compensation determined under the award passed
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, hereinafter to
as 'the LA Act). Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
though the petitioners have received the compensation
determined under the award passed under the LA Act, 1894
that would not deprive them of the benefit of Proviso under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Therefore, in view of the
specific provision and also the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in WA No.100864-866/2014 and connected matters,
the petitioners are entitled for redetermination of the
compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
State submits that the petitioners having received the
compensation amount determined under the award passed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
under the LA Act, 1894, are estopped from claiming
compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. Therefore,
respondent No.6 has rightly issued the impugned endorsement
and the decision relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable
to the facts of the case.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties.
7. It is undisputed that the award under Section 11 of
the LA Act, 1894 was passed on 31.12.2013. The Act 2013,
came into affect on 01.01.1014. Section 24 of the Act, 2013
deals with lapsing of acquisition in certain cases and Proviso to
sub-Section 2 of section 24 states where an award has been
made and the compensation in respect of the majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries,
then all the beneficiaries specifies in the notification for
acquisition under Section 4 of the LA Act, 1894 shall be entitled
for compensation in accordance with proviso of this Act. The
Division Bench of this Court in WA No.100864-866/2014 and
connected matters with reference to proviso to Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013 at para No.15 page (162) has held as follows:
"15. If the facts of the present case are explained with some
more details, the fallacy of the contention of the State
would be clear. Section 4(1) notification and Section
6(1) notification pertain to 183 properties. Awards are
passed only in respect of 53 persons and properties,
allegedly as a first stage, deferring passing of the
awards in respect of 130 other cases to a future date.
Even in respect of these 53 land owners, admittedly no
amount is paid as compensation nor any amount has
been deposited either into the Court or in their accounts.
It is thus clear that if in respect of persons in whose
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
favour awards have been passed prior to the
commencement of the New Act, no amount has been
deposited, then as per the proviso to Section 24
compensation has to be paid as per the New Act. The
requirement of the proviso is that in order to be
governed by the provisions of the Old Act, atleast in
majority of cases where awards have been passed,
compensation amount ought to have been deposited in
the account of the land owners. When the factual matrix
discloses that not even in a single case award amount
has been deposited though awards have been passed
earlier to the commencement of the New Act, question
of depriving the writ petitioners of their entitlement to
have compensation paid in terms of the New Act does
not arise. If such a contention is accepted, it will run
counter to the intent and purpose of the legislation.
When the proviso expressly provides remedy to the land
owners to seek compensation under the New Act,
question of driving the petitioners to agitate their rights
under Sections 18 or 28A of the Old Act does not arise.
Therefore, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the
benefit of compensation under the New Act."
8. Admittedly the award under the LA Act, 1894 was
passed on 31.12.2013 which clearly infers that the
compensation amount was not paid to the majority of the land
losers on or before commencement of the Act, 2013. Therefore,
in view of the specific provision contained in proviso to 24(2) of
the Act, 2013 and also a legal principle established by the
Division Bench of this Court, though the petitioners have
received the compensation in terms of the award passed under
the LA Act, 1894 after commencement of the Act, 2013 cannot
be deprived of the compensation to be determined under the
Act, 2013 to which they are legally entitled. Therefore, the
impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.6 is contrary
to the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the same is not
sustainable in law. Accordingly, i proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1115
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsements dated
16.02.2022 issued by respondent No.6 at
Annexures-H1 to H14 are hereby quashed.
iii) Respondent No.6 to re-determine the
compensation under the provisions of the
Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
and pay the compensation determined after
deducting the compensation already paid to
the petitioners with all statutory benefits.
iv) The said exercise shall be concluded within a
period of four months from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSP
CT:ANB
