Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Road Developmetn ... vs Putalabai W/O Annarao Police Patil And ... on 5 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
WP No. 200652 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.200652 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
PROJECT OFFICE, PWD BUILDING PREMISES,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R/O KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A. M. NAGRAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. PUTALABAI
W/O ANNARAO POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally R/O KALABURAGI,
signed by TQ. & DIST. KALABUARGI-585 103.
RENUKA
Location: A) SHANTALINGAPPA
High Court
Of Karnataka S/O LATE ANNARAO POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NO.280, LAXMINAGAR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 103.
B) GURUSHANTAPPA
S/O LATE ANNARAO POLICE PATIL,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O NO.280, LAXMINAGAR, KALABURAGI,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 103.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
WP No. 200652 of 2023
(AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THE
COURT DATED 29.05.2024)
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
KALABURAGI-585 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 (A) & R1 (B);
SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2021, PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 SLAO VIDE ANNEXURE-D BEARING
NO.KANDAYA/BHUSWA/14/2004-05 AND BEARING
NO.KANDAYA/BHUSWA/SANKIRNA/34/2021-22 AND ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 SLAO TO REFER THE MATTER TO
JURISDICTIONAL CIVIL COURT AS PER SECTION 28A(3) OF
THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
WP No. 200652 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner, who is a beneficiary of an acquisition
has challenged an award dated 18.12.2021 passed by
respondent No.2 under Section 28(A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the L.A. Act').
2. The petitioner contends that, the land belonging
to the predecessor of respondent Nos.1(A) and 1(B)
bearing Sy. No.3/2b of Hirapur was acquired in terms of a
preliminary notification dated 03.03.2005 and final
notification dated 25.07.2005. An award dated 08.07.2008
was passed under Section 11 of the L.A. Act, determining
the market value of the land at Rs.2,34,379/- for 32
guntas. It is stated that in respect of acquisition of a
similarly situated land in Sy.No.29/3/5 the land loser
sought reference under Section 18(1) of the L.A. Act
before respondent No.2, which was referred to the
Reference Court for determining the market value of the
acquired land. The Reference Court registered LAC
No.470/2012 and enhanced the compensation to a sum of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
Rs.170/- per sq. ft. vide judgment and award dated
12.07.2017. Based on such an award, the predecessor of
respondent Nos.1(A) and 1(B) filed an application under
Section 28(A) of the L.A. Act before respondent No.2 on
06.10.2017, requesting him to determine the
compensation as per the compensation determined in LAC
No.470/2012. The petitioner filed its objections to the
application and requested the respondent No.2 to refer the
application to the Civil Court. The respondent No.2 after
nearly five years, allowed the application filed by
respondent No.1 under Section 28(A) of the L.A. Act and
re-determined the compensation with respect to the land
of respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner was not heard by respondent No.2
before re-determining the compensation payable to
respondent No.1 under Section 28(A) of the L.A. Act. He
submitted that re-determination of the compensation
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
would result in additional burden of payment of
compensation by the petitioner. He contended that under
Section 50(2) of the L.A. Act, the petitioner has not only a
right to participate in the award proceedings, but also has
right to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining
the correct compensation. He therefore, contends that the
petitioner ought to have been heard before re-determining
the compensation payable to respondent No.1. He also
contends that the impugned order passed by respondent
No.2 is after a delay of nearly four years and the petitioner
is exposed to the risk of paying interest at the rate of 15%
from 03.03.2006 to 17.12.2021. He submits that the delay
in re-determining the compensation is attributable to
respondent No.2 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be
penalized to pay the interest.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(A) and
1(B), on the other hand contended that respondent No.1 is
entitled for re-determination of the compensation based
on the higher compensation awarded by the Reference
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
Court in LAC No.470/2012. He submitted that respondent
No.1 had sought for re-determining the compensation on
12.07.2017 and contends that the petitioner was also
heard in the matter. He submits that if the petitioner is
aggrieved by the interest awarded by respondent No.2 on
the ground that respondent No.2 protracted the
proceedings before it, it has to work out its remedy
against respondent No.2 and not by contesting the award
of interest by respondent No.2.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for respondent Nos.1(A) and 1(B) as well as the learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2
and 3.
6. It is not in dispute that the Reference Court in
LAC No.470/2012, while considering a reference seeking
higher compensation in respect of acquisition of a similarly
situated land, enhanced the compensation determined by
the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, respondent No.1
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
was also entitled to be similarly treated by respondent
No.2. Therefore, no objections can be raised by the
petitioner in the respondent No.1 making a claim for
similar compensation paid to the land loser in LAC
No.470/2012 by invoking Section 28(A) of the L.A. Act. As
a matter of fact, having regard to the purport and purpose
of Section 28(A) of the L.A. Act, it was incumbent upon
respondent No.2 to have informed all the land losers in
Hirapur village about the compensation enhanced by the
Reference Court and he must have taken steps to
re-determine the compensation for all the land losers in
that village. Since that was not done, respondent No.1 was
justified in making a request to respondent No.2 to re-
determine the compensation. Therefore, the petitioner
cannot challenge the award passed by respondent No.2,
re-determining the compensation.
7. A perusal of the award shows that the petitioner
had also participated in the proceedings and after hearing
the petitioner, the compensation was re-determined.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3646
Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record
warranting interference with the award passed by
respondent No.2. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in
re-determining the compensation by respondent No.2, it is
at liberty to proceed against respondent No.2 in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
