Karnataka High Court
Jemcy Ponnappa C P vs State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.12603 OF 2024 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. JEMCY PONNAPPA C.P.
S/O C.P. PONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF 4TH BLOCK,
BYPASS ROAD,
KUSHALNAGAR,
SOMAWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.
REP. BY HIS G.P.A. HOLDER
MR. ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM
S/O K.N. BALASUBRAMANYAM
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 45, 11TH MAIN,
13TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2. CASUBA INFRASTRUCTURE AND
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
NO.14, "SRI NIKETAN",
NANDI DURGA ROAD,
BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU.
REP. BY ITS PARTNER
MR. ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM.
...PETITIONERS
2
(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRIES,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB REGIONAL OFFICE,
BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEW MANGALURU - 575 011.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KIADB REGIONAL OFFICE,
BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEW MANGALURU - 575 011.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI M. RAO, HCGP FOR R1 & R4;
SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD
DATED 07TH JULY, 2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE
ANNEXURE-H AS ONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, BY
UPHOLDING THE AWARD DATED 16TH MARCH, 2023 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AS VALID AND BINDING
UPON THE RESPONDENTS.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH)
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the award dated
07th July, 2023 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No. 3;
inter alia sought for direction to the respondents to pay
compensation as per award dated 16th March, 2023 (Annexure-G)
with interest.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No.1
has issued Preliminary Notification dated 20th December, 2016
(Annexure-A) under Section 28(1) of Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'KIAD Act')
sought to acquire the land at Malur and Kandavara Villages of
Mangaluru Taluk for the purpose of development of Industrial Area
and in furtherance of the same, Final Notification came to be
issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 15th December,
2017 (Annexure-B). It is stated in the writ petition that the
respondent-Authorities have committed an error, while issuing the
4
notifications by stating that the claimants were entitled for
compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short,
hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act') and same was questioned
before this Court in Writ Petition No.33053 of 2019 and this Court,
by order dated 16th December, 2019 (Annexure-C), set-aside the
said communication dated 03rd July, 2019 and held that the
claimants were entitled for compensation in terms of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency of Land Acquisition and
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "New
Act. 2013"). It is further stated in the writ petition that the
respondent No.3 has passed General Award dated 18th November,
2020 (Annexure-D) treating the converted land as the agricultural
land and same was questioned before this Court, in Writ Petition
No.12699 of 2021 and this Court, by order dated 21st October,
2022 (Annexure-E), quashed the General Award dated 18th
November, 2020 and directed the respondent-Authorities to pass
fresh award in respect of the subject lands under the provisions of
Section 30 of KIAD Act read with the New Act, 2013. It is further
stated that, though this Court directed the respondent-Authorities
to pass fresh award, however, the respondents failed to pass
award and as such, the petitioners were constrained to file
5
contempt petition in C.C.C. No.364 of 2023 and in the said
contempt petition, the respondent-Authorities have filed objections
along with a copy of award dated 16th March, 2023. In that view
of the matter, the petitioners sought for dropping of contempt
proceedings against the respondent-Authorities with liberty to
pursue the writ petition in which, the petitioners have challenged
the award made by the respondent-Authorities which is impugned
in this writ petition and accordingly, the contempt petition came to
be closed by order 28th August, 2023 (Annexure-F). It is also
stated in the petition that the petitioners have filed Writ Petition
No.15168 of 2023, seeking direction to the respondents to
disburse the compensation amount of Rs.197,28,34,758/-. In the
meanwhile, beneficiaries of land in question viz. Mangaluru
Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. has filed Writ Petition No.22685
of 2023, challenging the notifications dated 15th December, 2017
and 25th November, 2020 issued under Section 28(4) of the KIAD
Act and these two writ petitions were clubbed together and
common order dated 22nd February, 2024 (Annexure-M) was
passed, dismissing the writ petition No.22685 of 2023 filed by the
Mangalurau Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. and allowed the writ
petitions in-part filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.15168
6
of 2023 and directed the respondent-Authorities to disburse the
amount of Rs.55,69,76,660/- in terms of award dated 07th July,
2023 (impugned in the present writ petition). It is the contention
of the petitioners that the respondent No.3, having passed the
award dated 16th March, 2023 became functus officio in passing
any further awards and as such, there is no authority to pass the
second award. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Heard Sri. K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Sri. Sampath A., appearing for the petitioners; Smt.
Reshmi M. Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for respondent No.1-Government and Sri. B.B. Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB.
4. Sri. K.G. Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners contended that the respondent-Authorities have
passed award dated 16th March, 2023 in connection with the
acquisition proceedings referred to above and have determined the
compensation as a sum of Rs.197,28,34,758/- and thereafter, the
respondent-Authorities have no authority under law to issue
second award in respect of the very same acquisition proceedings
and as such, sought for interference of this Court. In this regard,
7
learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the judgment of this
Court in Writ Petition No.10525 of 2021 disposed of on 26th
September, 2022 and has referred to paragraphs 11 and 12 of the
judgment and contended that, neither in LA Act nor in the New
Act, 2013 nor under the provisions of the KIAD Act, provides for
issuance of second award and therefore, sought for interference of
this Court.
5. Sri. K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
petitioners, referred to award dated 23rd December, 2022
(Annexure-R7), filed by the respondents in the additional
statement of objections and contended that the respondents are
urging another third award dated 23rd December, 2022 which is
not permissible under law and therefore, the respondents be
directed to give effect to award dated 16th March, 2023 (Annexure-
G). Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring
to paragraphs 48 and 54 to 58 in the judgment referred to at
Annexure-M contended that, this Court has heavily deprecated the
action of the respondent-KIADB with regard to passing of the
award in respect of the land in question and accordingly sought for
interference of this Court.
8
6. It is also the submission made by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioners that as the respondent-Authorities
admitted about the passing of award dated 16th March, 2023 in the
statement of objections filed in C.C.C No.364 of 2023, and
therefore, the said admission is a foundation for the rights of the
parties as such, the respondent-Authorities must give effect to the
admission made thereunder. In order to buttress his arguments,
learned Senior Counsel refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of SANGRAM SINH P. GAEKWAD AND
OTHERS vs. SHANTA DEVI P. GAEKWAD (D) THR. LRS AND
OTHERS reported in (2005)11 SCC 314 and contended that the
second award dated 07th July, 2023 (Annexure-G) is required to be
set-aside in this writ petition.
7. Per contra, Sri. B.B. Patil, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-KIADB categorically submitted that the
respondent-Authorities have not passed two or three awards as
contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the respondent-Authorities have passed only one
award dated 07th July, 2023 (Annexure-G), in respect of the
acquisition proceedings referred to above, which came to be
9
approved by the respondent-Government by order dated 07th
September, 2023 (Annexure-J) and therefore, the award which
came to be approved by the Government alone is a award made
under the provisions of Section 37 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed. It is also the contention raised by
learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB that the
respondent-KIADB has not filed objections in C.C.C No.364 of 2023
and further, the award 16th March, 2023 (Annexure-G) and the
award dated 23rd December, 2022 (Annexure-R7) are the draft
awards and the only award approved by the acquiring authority-
State Government as per Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the KIAD Act is
the award and therefore, by referring to the Circular issued by the
Government dated 25th January, 2022 (Annexure-R4), learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB contended that,
unless the award prepared by the respondent-KIADB is approved
in terms of the Circular dated 25th January, 2022 (Annexure-R4),
no other awards could be considered as valid award under the
KIAD Act. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
10
8. In this regard, he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of BAILAMMA (SMT) @ DODDA
BAILAMMA (DEAD) AND OTHERS vs. POORNAPRAJNA
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND OTHERS
reported in (2006)2 SCC 416 and contended that the award, which
has been signed by the Government becomes an award under law
and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Smt. Rashmi M. Rao, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-Government argued on
similar lines of learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
KIADB.
10. In the light of submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the core questions to be answered in this
writ petition is that, when the award passed by the competent
authority determining the compensation to be payable to the
claimants become an award in law.
11. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-KIADB raised preliminary objection that the beneficiary
of the land-Mangaluru Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd., is a
necessary party to the proceedings and in the absence of the said
11
beneficiary, writ petition is not maintainable, however, in view of
the observation made by this Court in Writ Petition No.15168 of
2023 (Annexure-M), I am of the opinion that, the said beneficiary
of the land cannot be arraigned as necessary and proper party in
the present writ petition and therefore, said submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-KIADB with
regard to non-joinder of party cannot be accepted.
12. In the backdrop of these aspects, Section 4(1) and
Section 6(1) of LA Act provides for issuance of Preliminary and
Final Notifications and power is vested with the appropriate
Government to issue such notifications. Section 12 of the LA Act,
provides for passing of award by the Collector when to be final.
Section 15-A of the LA Act provides for power to be exercised by
the Government to call for records before the award is made by
the Collector under Section 11 of the LA Act. The language
employed under Section 4, 6, 12 and 15-A of the LA Act, makes it
clear that the State Government alone is empowered to issue the
Notification regarding acquisition and award has to be prepared by
the Collector and same is required to be approved by the State
Government, being an acquiring authority.
12
13. Sections 11 of the New Act, 2013 empowers the
appropriate Government to issue preliminary notification, proposed
to acquire the land for the public purpose. Section 19 of New Act,
2013 provides for publication of declaration and summary of
rehabilitation and settlement. After considering the report under
Section 15(2) of New Act, 2013, if appropriate Government
satisfies that, any land is need for the public purpose, a declaration
shall be made to that effect and published in a manner as
prescribed thereunder. Section 38 of New Act, 2013 provides for
jurisdiction of the appropriate Government to call for records from
the Collector before passing the award and Section 37 of the New
Act, 2013 provides for awards of Collector when to be final. The
language employed under Section 37(2) of the New Act, 2013
provides that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award
to such of the persons interested who are not present personally or
through their representatives when the award is made. Section
37 of the New Act, 2013 also provides that the award of the
Collector shall be final and conclusive evidence of determining
compensation and in terms of the law declared by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of BAILAMMA (supra) that the award
which has already been signed by the Collector becomes an award
13
as soon as it is approved by the Government without any
alteration. Paragraph 25 of the judgment reads as under:
"25. The Collector is required to hear the persons
interested and enquire into the objections, if any, raised
by them on the points which he is required to
determine. It is possible to conceive that he may hear
the objections on several dates having regard to the
number of objectors and the nature of the dispute that
may arise, whereafter he must make up his mind and
prepare his award. It is not expected of him that he
should prepare his award in presence of the persons
interested, since the Collector may take some time to
make up his mind on the matters he is required to
incorporate in his award. Thereafter, he is required to
send his award to the Government for approval. The
approval of the award may take some time, and it is not
known to the Collector as to when the Government will
approve the award. However, after the award is
approved, if there is no alteration in the award, he is
required to notify the parties concerned about the
award. He may do so by fixing a date on which the
parties may be required to appear for pronouncement
of the award, or he may inform them by giving them
written notice of the award. This is because an award is
in the nature of an offer and must be communicated to
the persons to whom the offer is made. There is nothing
in Section 11 which expressly requires the Collector to
14
announce his award in the presence of the persons
interested, though there is nothing which prevents him
from declaring the award on a date fixed by him for the
purpose. However, having regard to the provisions of
Section 12(2) of the Act, he must give immediate notice
to such of the persons interested as are not present
personally or by their representatives when the award is
made. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt that after
the award is approved the same becomes an offer to be
made to the persons interested, and this can be done
by either giving notice to the persons interested of the
date on which he may orally pronounce the award, or
by giving written notice of the award to the persons
interested. The question of limitation for filing a
reference under Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act has
to be determined by reference to the date on which the
award was either pronounced before the parties who
were present, or the date of the receipt of notice of the
award by those not present. The mere fact that the
Collector did not pronounce the award after notice in
the presence of the parties interested will not invalidate
the award, though it may have a bearing on the
question of limitation in the matter of seeking a
reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act. The award
which has already been signed by the Collector
becomes an award as soon as it is approved by the
Government without any alteration. At best the
appellants can contend that it becomes an award when
notice is given to the parties interested. Viewed from
15
any angle, having regard to the fact that there is no
dispute that the Government granted its approval on
16-11-1992 and notices were issued under Section
12(2) of the Act on 20-11-1992, it must be held that
the award was made within the period prescribed by
Section 11-A of the Act. There was really no necessity
for the Collector to sign the award again, nor does
Section 11 requires that for the purpose of pronouncing
the award notice should be given by the Collector to the
persons interested. Section 11 requires notice to be
given for the purpose of hearing objections. After the
objections are heard, the Collector has to apply his
mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances and
prepare an award whereafter he is required to send it to
the Government for approval. There is nothing in
Section 11 which requires him to give notice to the
persons interested of the date for pronouncement of the
award, though, as we have observed earlier, there is
also nothing which prevents him from giving such
notice. We agree with the finding of the High Court that
once it is shown that the award was made and signed
and approved by the Government within the period
prescribed by Section 11-A of the Act an award is
validly made. In the instant case, we have satisfied
ourselves that the award was received by the Deputy
Commissioner after approval, and notice was thereafter
issued under Section 12(2) of the Act on 20-11-1992."
16
14. It is also to be noted that the said aspect of the matter
was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VIDHARBHA IRRIGATION
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. MAHESH AND OTHERS
reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772. Paragraph 55 of the judgment
reads as under:
"55. Sub-section (1) to Section 37 of the 2013 Act as
well as sub-section (1) to Section 12 of the 1894 Act
state that the award shall be filed in the Collector's
office and shall be final and conclusive evidence as
between the Collector and the persons interested. It
would not matter whether the person interested have
appeared before the Collector or not. Further, the
award is final and conclusive evidence as of the true
area. Sub-section (3) to Section 37 of the 2013 Act
requires the Collector to keep open to public and display
summary of the entire proceedings undertaken in the
case of acquisition of land, including the amount of
compensation awarded. These mandates must be
complied with, but as they are post the making of the
award and, therefore, would not affect the validity of
the award when made within the statutory time. Issue
of notice by the Collector to the persons interested,
which is to be given to the persons not present
personally or through the representatives when the
award is made, is to be issued immediately, but the
17
issue of notice is not a condition precedent for making
the award. Belated issue of notice would not, therefore,
legally affect the validity of the award, though there
may be other consequences. Equally, the limitation
period to challenge and question the compensation
awarded would commence on the service/intimation
about making of the award on the landowners. [
See Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. LAO, AIR 1961 SC
1500 -- the date for counting limitation period means
the date of communication or is known by a party
whether actually or constructively.] Be that as it may,
when satisfied that the award was made/published
within the prescribed period, even when there was
backdating of the award or delay in effecting service on
the landowners, the land acquisition proceedings need
not be set aside."
15. The mandate under Section 28 of the KIAD Act provides
for acquisition of land and the acquiring authority as per Section
28(1) of the said Act to issue Preliminary Notification and the Final
Notification is to be issued as per Section 28(4) by the State
Government and thereafter, such acquired land under KIAD Act, be
transferred to the respondent-KIADB for the purpose for which the
land has been acquired. Section 29 of the KIAD Act provides for
granting of compensation, wherein, Section 29(1) the KIAD Act
postulates that the acquiring authority is the State Government
18
and further the State Government has been empowered to pay
such acquisition compensation to the land loosers and therefore, in
all the above three enactments, the acquiring authority being the
State Government alone empowered to approve the draft award
said to have been prepared by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner
and the said award shall come into force only after approved by
the State Government, being a acquiring authority. In that view of
the matter, referring to the facts of the present case, the award
dated 16th March, 2023 (Annexure-G) and award dated 23rd
December, 2022 (Annexure-R7), have not reached the logical end
as the same has not secured the approval of the State Government
and therefore, these two awards, though prepared by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, determining the compensation, to be
considered as draft awards and have no legal legs to be considered
as an award under the aforementioned Act. However, the award
dated 07th July, 2023 (Annexure-H) said to have been prepared by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer and same has been approved
by the State Government as per order dated 07th September, 2023
(Annexure-G) in accordance with the Circular dated 25th January,
2022 (Annexure-R4) and therefore, the same be considered as the
only award passed by the respondent-Authorities. At this stage, it
19
is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS vs. RAJIV GUPTA AND
ANOTHER reported in (1994)5 SCC 686 at paragraph 6 held as
follows:
"6. Section 11 postulates of conducting an enquiry
and making the award by the Collector. The first proviso
envisages that "no award shall be made by the Collector
under sub-section without the previous approval of the
appropriate Government or of such officer as the
appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf ".
It is common knowledge that exercising the power
under the first proviso, the appropriate Government
made rules or statutory orders or instructions whatever
be the nomenclature, they have statutory operation
giving authorisation to the Land Acquisition Collector to
make an award up to a particular pecuniary limit
without prior approval either of the appropriate
Government or an officer authorised by the appropriate
Government in that behalf. If the award exceeds the
limit, prior approval of the State Governments or
authorised officer is mandatory. Any award made in
violation thereof, renders the award non est and void as
it hinges upon the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition
Collector or Officer. No doubt, Mr Markandeya is right
that the State had not produced before us rules or
orders issued under the first proviso to Section 11 that
the Land Acquisition Officer shall not make an award
20
exceeding one crore of rupees without prior approval of
the Commissioner, namely, Commissioner, Board of
Revenue. But nonetheless, there is a statutory inhibition
by first proviso to Section 11 that the prior approval
either of the appropriate Government or of an officer
which the appropriate Government authorises in that
behalf, is mandatory for making an award. It is a
condition precedent. Obviously, for this reason, the
Collector in his letter dated 20-12-1992, addressed to
the Commissioner, seeking prior approval thus:
"Proposed award
***
Thus the proposed lands are disputed lands, and
therefore, it has been mentioned in the proposed
award that payment of compensation shall be made
after obtaining the final report of the enquiry officer and
the final judgment passed in the cases pending in
different courts. Since, in the present case, the award is
to be made up to 21-12-1992 only, it is to request you
to kindly give your prior approval on the proposed
award."
Its bare reading clearly indicates that the conscience
that he is required to make the award on or before 21-
12-1992 and to seek prior approval and accordingly he
requested the Commissioner to grant him prior approval
as is enjoined in the first proviso to Section 11 to make
the proposed award. The heading of the award itself
clearly indicates working of his mind that it is only a
proposed award and after prior approval is given, he is
enjoined to make the award under Section 11 of the
Act. Since prior approval was not given before the
expiry of 21-12-1992, there is no award made by the
Land Acquisition Officer. In the eye of law the proposed
award of the Collector under Section 11 of the Act is not
the award. As seen, Section 11-A is mandatory and on
expiry of two years from the date of publication of
declaration, i.e., on 21-12-1992, the entire proceedings
under the Act stood lapsed. We are not concerned in
this case with the proviso to Section 11-A. The High
Court was, therefore, not right in its construction that
there was an award made by the Collector on 20-12-
1992 and the direction to take further steps in that
behalf are clearly illegal. The review petition is
accordingly allowed. The order dated 10-12-1993 of the
High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The
writ petition stands dismissed but in the circumstances
parties are directed to bear their own costs."
16. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of RAJINDER SINGH BHATTI AND
OTHERS vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in
(2009) 11 SCC 480. Paragraph 29 of the judgment reads as
under:
"29. As noticed above, the Land Acquisition Collector
moved the Government seeking its approval for the
proposed award. This was imperative as per the first
proviso to Section 11. The Government considered the
matter and did not approve the proposed award. When
no such approval was granted by the Government, the
Collector could not have made the award and in fact he
did not. As a result thereof, the acquisition proceedings
lapsed. The lapse of acquisition proceedings in the
circumstances under Section 11-A cannot and would not
amount to withdrawal from acquisition by the
Government under Section 48(1). We answer Point (1)
in the negative."
17. In view of law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforementioned judgments, the proposed award made by the
Collector/Deputy Commissioner/SLAO under the relevant Act
mandatorily requires the approval by the State Government, being
an acquiring authority, under such enactment and therefore, the
contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners cannot be accepted that the award dated 07th July,
2023 (Annexure-H) is second award and award dated 16th March,
2023 (Annexure-G) is the first award on the sole ground that the
said award dated 16th March, 2023 has not been approved by the
State Government in terms of the provisions referred to above. In
that view of the matter, at no stretch of imagination, it may be
concluded that there are two awards and the award dated 07th
July, 2023 which has been approved by the Government on 07th
September, 2023 (Annexure-J), is the only award passed by the
respondent-Authorities and therefore, I do not find any merit in
the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
petitioners.
18. Be that as it may be, it is always open for the
claimant/petitioners to approach the competent Court/Authority
seeking enhancement of compensation under the relevant Act, if
the claimants feel that the award amount specified in the award
dated 07th July, 2023 is meagre and requires enhancement. In
this regard, this Court, in Writ Petition No.15168 of 2023
(Annexure-M) disposed of on 22nd February, 2024, reserved liberty
to the land owners to seek for enhancement of compensation in a
manner known to law.
19. Having arrived at a conclusion in the present writ
petition that the respondent-Authorities have passed only the
award dated 07th July, 2023 (Annexure-H) which came to be
approved by the State Government on 07th September, 2023
(Annexure-J), it is open for the petitioner/claimants to seek for
enhancement of compensation in accordance with law. Therefore,
I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ
petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
