CAzÁV «±ÉõÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ
ªÀÄAqÀ½, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀÄ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÁ©üªÀÈ¢ÞUÁV ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ£ÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀs£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀÇwð
¥Àæw§AzsÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ d«Ää£À ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀs£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä
ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀ£ÁVzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ «¢ü¹gÀĪÀ µÀgÀwÛ£ÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ d«Ää£À
¥ÀjºÁgÀzsÀ£À F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ gÀÆ. 83,16,600/- (JA¨sÀvÀÆÛgÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀ¢£ÁgÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ
DgÀ£ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) UÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
and the owner of the land (respondent No.1). Thereafter,
the said agreement. Later a consent award was also passed
to respondent No.1. However, though in the indemnity bond, it
5. Subsequently, in the year 2013, he files W.P.
6. It is pertinent to note that in the aforementioned
Court to consider his request for higher compensation.
7. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the parties
8. The learned Single Judge has also ruled about the
"110. As already stated above, since the entire
approach of the authorities in holding a public meeting by
constituting a Committee headed by the Deputy
Commissioner is fundamentally opposed to the mandate of
Section 29(2), any payment made on the basis of the
decision of the Committee would not amount to payments
of compensation which has been determined under an
agreement.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
111. Since the Deputy Commissioner has himself
suggested the compensation payable while heading the
Committee, it is obvious that the matter cannot now be
referred to him to determine the compensation. As a
consequence, the authorities shall refer the matter to the
Civil Court, who shall determine the compensation that the
petitioners would be entitled to.
112. The Civil Court shall treat the matter as a
reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act
of1894, thereafter hold an enquiry to determine whether
the claim of the petitioners for the higher compensation is
justified, either wholly or in-part, and pass appropriate
orders."
9. In addition, the learned Single Judge has issued the
following directions:
114. Before parting with this case, it would be
necessary to lay down the procedure which the Board is
required to follow under Section 29(2) for determining the
amount of compensation payable by agreement.
115. This has become necessary since there are no
statutory rules framed under the Act in this regard and also
because the delay in determining the compensation violates
the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, while causing
serious prejudice to the land-loser, thereby giving the
officials of the State an unfair advantage over a person who
has lost his land.
116. The Board shall follow the following procedure
in the matter of determining compensation under Section
29 of the Act.
a. The Board shall not follow the procedure of
constituting a Committee to determine the
price of the land for the purposes of Section
29(2) of the Act as the same would be
contrary to the statutory provisions;
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
b. The Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land
Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land
Acquisition Officer, as the case may be, shall
make a written offer to the land-loser within a
month of the declaration under Section
28(4)being published, clearly stating the
amount of compensation that he is prepared to
offer for the lands acquired;
c. If the land loser were to refuse the offer in
writing, the Assistant Commissioner/the
Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional
Land Acquisition Officer shall within a month
thereafter, refer the matter of the Deputy
Commissioner for determining the amount of
compensation;
d. If the land-loser is incapable of being notified
of the written offer or if he fails to respond to
the offer within the aforementioned period of 2
months from the written offer of the Board/the
Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land
Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land
Acquisition Officer, it shall be presumed that
the land-loser has refused to accept
compensation by way of an agreement and the
Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land
Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land
Acquisition Officer shall forthwith refer the
matter to the Deputy Commissioner for
determining the compensation;
e. In either of these cases, the Assistant
Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition
Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer
shall deposit the amount that he has offered as
compensation, in the Civil Court, and the Civil
Court shall thereafter invest the same in a
Fixed Deposit;
f. If the land-loser were to make a counter-offer
to the written proposal of the Assistant
Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition
Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer,
it would be open for the Assistant
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition
Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer
to either consider the counter-offer or reject
the counter-offer or even embark upon a
further course of deliberation. However, in no
event shall the deliberations be continued
beyond 6 months from the date of publication
of the declaration in the Gazette;
g. On the expiry of six months from the date of
publication of the declaration under Section
28(4) in the Gazette, whether the land-loser
has agreed to the offer or not, the Assistant
Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition
Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer
shall refer the matter to the Deputy
Commissioner for determination of the
agreement and also deposit the amount that it
had offered, in the Civil Court, which shall
invest the amount in a Fixed Deposit;
h. It is hereby clarified that mere deposit of the
amount offered by the Assistant
Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition
Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer
would not disentitle the land-losers for any
interest that they may be entitled to in terms
of the provisions relating to payment of
interest under the Land Acquisition Act;
i. The Deputy Commissioner shall within
6months of the reference to him by the
Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land
Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land
Acquisition Officer determine the compensation
as provided under Section 29(3) of the Act;
and
j. The land-loser will then have the option of
seeking a reference to the Civil Court and he
would be entitled to seek withdrawal of the
amount that has been deposited pursuant to
the offer made by the Assistant
Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition
Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
(only in cases where there is no dispute
regarding the entitlement of the land-loser).
k. It is also made clear that it would be open for the
KIADB to straightaway refer the matter to the
Deputy Commissioner for determination of
compensation, if it does not wish to enter into the
process of determination of compensation by way
of an Agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act.
10. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge, KIADB has preferred this appeal with the following
prayer:
"(a) Call for the records pertaining to Writ Petition
No.85557/2013(LA-KIADB) filed by the Respondent
No.1 before the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon'ble
Court;
(b) Set aside the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the
Learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court in Writ
Petition Nos.85557/2013(LA-KIADB) and further to
dismiss the said writ petitions; and,
(c) Award the costs of this Appeal and further to pass
any other orders as found deem and fit under the
facts and circumstances of the case."
11. Heard Sri. Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for
the appellant, Sri. S.S. Yadrami, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri. Narayan V. Yaji, learned counsel for
respondent No.1, and Sri. G.K. Hiregoundar, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
12. The lands of respondent No.1 have been acquired for
formation of an IT/BT Park by the State in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the said acquisition is not challenged.
The only grievance raised is with regard to the compensation
paid.
13. Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 reads as under:
"29. Compensation.- (1) Where any land is
acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the
State Government shall pay for such acquisition
compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Where the amount of compensation has been
determined by agreement between the State Government
and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in
accordance with such agreement.
(3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the
State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy
Commissioner for determination of the amount of
compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the
person or persons to whom such compensation shall be
paid.
(4) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (3),
the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner
or occupier of such land and on all persons known or
believed to be interested herein to appear before him and
state their respective interests in the said land."
14. In respect of lands where no consent award is
passed, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
appellant that the award is determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer after hearing the parties concerned, in terms
of Section 29(3) and Section 29(4) of the Act, as per the
notification issued, even though it is mentioned that reference
made to the Deputy Commissioner in the said section. This
submission is not disputed by respondent No.1 or by the learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
15. It is further submitted that this aspect was not
argued before the learned Single Judge, as the interpretation of
Section 29(3) and Section 29(4) of the Act was not relevant for
deciding the dispute on hand. However, the learned Single Judge
proceeded to issue directions regarding the Price Advisory
Committee, though no arguments were advanced on that issue.
The said submission is also not controverted by the learned
counsel for the respondents.
16. With regard to the Price Advisory Committee, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the same was constituted
by the State with the participation of several responsible officers
to arrive at fair and just compensation for the land losers,
considering various relevant factors such as the potential use of
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
the land and proper evaluation of market value, instead of
relying solely on the assessment of the Special Land Acquisition
Officer. It is submitted that there was no requirement for the
learned Single Judge to pronounce on the validity of the said
committee, as the lis on hand required only a determination as
to the validity of the consent award entered into under Section
29(2) of the Act.
17. After issuance of the final notification, negotiations
were held between the appellant and the land loser, and a
meeting was convened on 26.11.2007 for passing a consent
award under Section 29(2) of the Act. Initially, compensation at
the rate of ₹5,21,362/- per acre was proposed, which was
rejected, and the records indicate that farmers were demanding
₹25 to ₹30 lakhs per acre. Subsequent offers of ₹9,00,000/- per
acre and ₹13,36,000/- per acre were also not accepted.
Thereafter, by letter dated 29.07.2008, respondent No.1
demanded compensation at the rate of ₹1,20,000/- per gunta,
amounting to ₹5,91,20,000/- for the entire land, which was also
not accepted. However, respondent No.1 ultimately accepted a
total compensation of ₹83,16,600/- for the entire extent of land
measuring 6 acres and 36 guntas, and an agreement dated
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
10.06.2009 was entered into. Further, a separate agreement was
entered into in respect of the building towards which a sum of
Rs.83,18,014/- was paid. The entire compensation agreed has
been paid and received, and the transaction stood concluded on
23.03.2010.
18. Subsequently, on 12.12.2013, respondent No.1 filed
the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, based on the
correspondence exchanged between the parties, held that the
agreement dated 10.06.2009 was vitiated by undue influence. In
our considered opinion, the said conclusion is erroneous, as there
is nothing on record to establish undue influence. Had
respondent No.1 not agreed to the consent award, an award
under Section 29(1) of the Act would have been passed, and he
could have sought enhancement in accordance with law before
the appropriate forum. Respondent No.1 never questioned the
acquisition, voluntarily entered into the agreement, and received
the compensation. After a lapse of several years, the writ
petition was filed. Once a consent award was accepted, the
question of seeking higher compensation does not arise in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Further, there was no
necessity for the learned Single Judge to issue directions
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3115-DB
HC-KAR
regarding the modalities of consent awards or to pronounce upon
the formation of the Price Advisory Committee.
19. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ appeal is allowed.
ii) The order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P. No.85557/2013 is set aside.
iii) The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI)
JUDGE
KMS, VB / CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
