Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Industrial Area vs Sri A S Vedhamurthy on 10 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
WA No. 568 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-01
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD
No.14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDS BHAVAN
NRUPATHUNGA, BENGALURU-01
REP. BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
CHANNEGOWDA
PREMA
Location: High
Court of 1. SRI. A.S. VEDHAMURTHY
Karnataka
S/O A.V. SHIVASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT. ARCHAKARAHALLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
WA No. 568 of 2022
3. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
IV-T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 001
BY ITS REGISTRAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. DEVARAJ C.H., GA FOR R2;
SMT. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2022
PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
No.6528/2018 ALLOWING THE PETITIONS OF RESPONDENT
No.1 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ACQUISITION
PROCEEDINGS AND THE GENERAL AWARD DATED 21.01.2016
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ appeal is preferred by the KIADB
aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
28.03.2022 in WP No.6528/2018.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the Notification has been issued under Section
28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966
(for short, 'the KIAD Act') on 27.02.2007 notifying, interalia
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
lands belonging to the respondent for formation of an Industrial
Area. After issuance of notice under Section 28(2), notification
under Section 28(4) of the Act was issued on 18.06.2007. It is
submitted that thereafter, General Award came to be passed
under Section 29(3) of the Act on 21.01.2016. The award was
approved by the Government and was duly issued on
16.10.2017 and notice under Section 12(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 02.11.2017.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that the writ petitioner who was owner of 3 acres 22
guntas of land in Sy.No.51/2 of Archakarahalli Village, Kasaba
Hobli, Ramanagar Taluk, had approached this Court in filing
the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:
a) Declare that the impugned process of
acquisition initiated by the respondent No.1 for the
establishment of Rajiv Gandhi Medical and Health Science
University in notification dated 27.02.2007 in CI 140 SPQ
2007 published in the Official Gazette, vide Annexure-A
U/s 28(1) and the notification dated 18.06.2007, vide
Annexure-B, issued by the respondent No.1 in CI 140
SPQ 2007 U/s 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Act is lapsed as far as No.66 in respect of
Sy No.51/2 to an extent of 3 Acres and 22 guntas.
In the alternative,
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
b) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash
the general award dated 21.01.2016 passed by the
respondent No.3 in KIADB: LAQ: 2015-16 vide Annexure-
K as illegal in so far as petitioner at Sl No.64 in respect of
Sy No.51/2 to an extent of 3 acres and 22 guntas and
consequently direct the respondents to pay the
compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in respect of
the lands of the petitioner.
c) Issue any other writ or direction in the nature of
mandamus to the respondents as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
4. The writ petition was resisted by the appellants
contending that the General Award had already been passed
and that the prayers were therefore, unsustainable. Learned
Single Judge after considering the contentions advanced and
the specific facts available in the instant case, held that the
possession had not been taken by the KIADB and that
compensation had also not been paid to the petitioners. It was
therefore found that the writ petition was to be allowed in part,
declaring that the impugned acquisition under the Final
Notification dated 18.06.2007 stood quashed insofar as the
subject property involved in the writ petition was concerned.
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit
that there is no specific time limit for passing the award as
provided under the KIADB Act and that as such, the finding of
the learned Single Judge was erroneous and is liable to be set
aside. It is further contended that it has been clearly held by
this Court as well as the Apex Court that the time limit as
provided under Section 11A of the 1894 Act, could not be
applied to the proceedings under KIADB Act and that the said
aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the
learned Single Judge. It is further contended that the vesting
occurs under the KIADB Act as soon as the final notification is
issued under the KIADB Act and that as such, the findings of
the learned Single Judge were erroneous.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would place
reliance on the decisions in M. NAGABHUSHANA V. STATE
OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2011 SC
1113 and GIRNAR TRADERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 3 SCC 1.
7. It is further contended that the question whether
the acquisition could have been undertaken by the KIADB for
the purpose of Health University and Hospital was itself under
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
consideration by the Apex Court and the question having been
decided only in the year 2015, the General Award passed in the
year 2016 was not belated and this aspect was not properly
considered by the learned Single Judge.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would, on the other hand, contend that the facts of the instant
case, as found by the learned Single Judge, was different and
extremely relevant. It is submitted that after the notification
was issued in the year 2007, the writ petitioner had consented
to receive compensation as contemplated under Section 29(2)
of the KIADB Act and the writ petitioner was also issued the
cheque dated 20.08.2007 for a total sum of Rs.1,02,00,000/-
as compensation for the acquisition of the property in question.
However, it is submitted that stop payment instructions had
been issued by the appellants and the compensation, as
consented, was never paid to the respondent. It is submitted
that it is long thereafter, on 02.11.2017, that notice had been
issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
intimating that General Award has been passed. It is further
submitted that the Apex Court as well as this Court, even in the
decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants,
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
had clearly held that the award has to be passed within a
reasonable time.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent also relies on
the judgments in WA No.1795/2016 and connected cases as
well as WA No.4567/2011 in support of this contention.
Reference is also placed on the recent decision of the Apex
Court in BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ AND OTHERS V.
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, arising out of
SLP(C) No.10338/2023 and submits that in a case where the
land is sought to be acquired but no award is passed within a
reasonable time and no compensation is paid, the
compensation is liable to be paid taking note of the value of the
land at the time when the compensation is paid and not as on
the date when the notification was issued. It is submitted that
in the instant case, there is a long delay of nine years in
passing of the award. It is further contended that even though
there was a consent award and issuance of the cheque for a
sum of Rs.1,02,00,000/- as compensation payable in respect of
the acquired property in August 2007, the value now fixed in
respect of the property by the award in 2016 is only
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
10. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that there was a consent award and handing over of a
cheque dated 20.08.2007 for a total consideration of
Rs.1,02,00,000/- to the petitioner in respect of his property.
However, thereafter, it is contended by the learned counsel for
the appellants that there were disputes with regard to TDS
payable on the amount of compensation and that stop memo
had been issued by the appellants with regard to the said
payment. Long thereafter, it appears that a General Award has
been now passed indicating the value of the land as
Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. It is after considering the contentions
raised on either side and in the specific facts and circumstances
of the instant case that the learned Single Judge had come to
the conclusion that the notification is liable to be set aside in
respect of the property belonging to the writ petitioner.
11. Having considered the contentions advanced and in
the peculiar facts of this case, we are not inclined to interfere
with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. This is
more so in view of the fact that though there was a consent
award and an agreement to pay the compensation at much
higher rates, the same was not honoured by the appellants and
NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB
a general award is passed in 2016 offering compensation at
much reduced rates. Even the said compensation has not been
paid. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that any
interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge would
not be warranted in the intra-court appeal. The writ appeal is
therefore fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RAK
