Karnataka High Court
Mrs Sakkubai vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
WA No. 522 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 522 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
MRS. SAKKUBAI
W/O. LATE Y. K. GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT #5562, 7TH CROSS,
VISHWESHWARANAGARA,
MYSURU-570 008.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
I.L.B ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
I.L.B ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
WA No. 522 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.54673/2018 DATED 12/09/2022 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging
the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.54673/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the writ petition by stating in paragraph 8 of the
impugned order as under:
"8. In furtherance of the same, the respondent-
authorities have deposited the compensation amount before the
civil court on 11.09.2014 produced at Annexure- F. It is also
made clear that the petitioner has received cost of Rs.50,000/-
from the respondent-authorities for having not deposited the
compensation amount in furtherance of the said notifications,
and in that view of the matter, I am of the view that as the
petitioner herein has received cost in terms of the order dated
07.03.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.39216 of 2013,
petitioner cannot be permitted to seek further compensation
under any new Act, since the Preliminary Notification and the
Final Notification have been issued much before the passing of
the new act i.e. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
In that view of the matter, I find force in the arguments
advanced by learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2
and 3 and as the compensation has been deposited before the
Civil Court in terms of the order dated 07.03.2014 passed in
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
Writ Petition No.39216 of 2013 vide Annexure-F, I do not find
any material illegality to interfere with the writ petition. In
respect of arguments advanced by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, seeking alternative site, said
submission has not been considered in the aforementioned writ
petition. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot urge the same
ground in the present writ petition and present writ petition is
filed in the year 2018, after the conclusion of the earlier petition
i.e. Writ Petition No.39216 of 2013. In that view of the matter
also the present writ petition is deserved to be dismissed."
2. Suffice to state the facts relevant to be noted for
the purpose of this appeal are that the respondent Authorities
have issued Preliminary Notification dated 19.12.1963 followed
by Final Notification dated 25.03.1969, acquiring the land
belonging to the appellant herein.
3. The grievance of the appellant before the learned
Single Judge was that he has not been paid compensation in
furtherance to the aforesaid notifications. He had initially
approached this Court in W.P.No.39216/2013. This Court vide
order dated 07.03.2014 disposed of the petition inter alia
directing the respondent Authorities to deposit the
compensation in Civil Court as per law with cost of Rs.50,000/-
to be payable to the appellant herein or in the alternative, the
respondent Authorities shall allot a site in favour of the
appellant proportionate to the site that was acquired in terms
of the aforesaid notifications.
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
4. It is a matter of record that the appellant has made
representation to the respondent Authorities dated 13.10.2024
seeking alternative site.
5. It is the stand of the appellant in writ petition that
pursuant to the order passed in WP.No.39216/2013, the
respondent Authorities have deposited the compensation
amount under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as ' the Act, 1894' for short) before the
Civil Court.
6. The case of the appellant before the learned Single
Judge was also that the compensation amount that has been
deposited by the respondent Authorities is inadequate and the
compensation has to be deposited in terms of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act, 2013' for short). It was also stated that since a
direction has been issued by this Court to allot alternative site,
the same has to be considered in the writ petition.
7. On the other hand, the case of the respondents
before the learned Single Judge was that they have deposited
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
the compensation in terms of the order passed by this Court in
writ petition No.39216/2013 before the Civil Court with costs as
awarded by the Court of Rs.50,000/-, and as such, the
appellant cannot seek further compensation under the
provisions of any other Act.
8. Today also, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would make similar submissions inasmuch as the
compensation which has been awarded to the appellant is
inadequate and the compensation having been deposited in the
year 2014 has to be deposited under the provisions of the Act,
2013 and not under the provisions of the Act, 1894.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents reiterated the submissions and justified the
compensation granted to the appellant along with the costs on
the basis of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ
petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we are not in agreement with the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
11. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge is
right in referring to the order passed by this Court on
07.03.2014 in WP.No.39216/2013. Concedingly, the appellant
has not challenged the order in a higher forum. It follows that
the said order has become final inasmuch as the respondents,
who were directed to deposit the compensation in the Civil
Court along with cost of Rs.50,000/-, have complied with the
order. Insofar as the plea of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is entitled to alternative site as
directed by this Court in its order dated 07.03.2014 is
concerned, it is clear the order dated 07.03.2014 gives
discretion to the respondents, either to deposit the
compensation along with cost of Rs.50,000/- in the Civil Court
which shall enure to the benefit of appellant or in the
alternative, they shall allot a site in favour of appellant
proportionate to the land that was acquired. The respondent
Authorities decided to accept the earlier part of the order of
depositing the compensation along with cost of Rs.50,000/- in
the Civil Court.
12. Having said that, insofar as the plea of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the compensation has to be
NC: 2024:KHC:30226-DB
deposited under the Act of 2013 is concerned, the same is
unmerited, as the compensation has been deposited by the
respondents in terms of the directions given by this Court on
07.03.2014 when the new Act had already come into effect. If
the appellant had any grievance with regard to such a direction,
he should have challenged the same before a higher forum,
having not done that and the said order having attained
finality, we find no illegality in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge. That apart, we agree with the conclusion drawn
by the learned Single Judge that, the Preliminary and Final
Notifications have been issued much before the passing of the
Act of 2013. The appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of
merit, the same is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the main appeal, I.A.No.1/2023
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KTY
