[Cites 26, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Chaya vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.21393 OF 2023 (LA - KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SMT.CHAYA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
W/O SRI KAMARESH BABU,
RESIDING AT NO.871,
3RD CROSS, 7TH MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 038
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI RAMESH G. CHANDIRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O GOBINDARAM
NO.674, 1ST CROSS,
INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 038.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SMT.SIRI R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES,
VIKAS SOUDHA
2
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE CEO AND EM
KIADB (INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT)
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KIADB KHANIJA BHAVAN,
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR,
EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2
KIADB, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
NO.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR
EAST WING, KANIJA BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
PRESENTLY AT NO.14/3,
MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE
AWARD NOTICE DATED 26/07/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BEARING
NO.KIADB/LAQ/2909/2023-24 ISSUED BY THE R4; B) DIRECTING
THE R4 TO PASS AN AWARD AS PER THE AWARD ISSUED TO THE
3
ADJACENT LAND OWNER AS PER ANNEXURE-J BEARING NUMBER
BENGALURU/VBUSWA/ 2017-18 DATED 05.09.2017 WITH ALL
ELIGIBLE SOLATIUM AND INTEREST AFTER HEARING THE
PETITIONER, ALTERNATIVELY; DIRECT THE R4 TO PASS AN AWARD
UNDER THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY
IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
ACT, 2013.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following
prayer:
"(a) Issue an order writ in the nature of certiorari to quash
the award notice dated 26-07-2023 as per Annexure-A
bearing No.KIADB/LAQ/2909/2023-24 issued by the
4th respondent.
(b) Issue an order writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the 4th respondent to pass an award as per
the award issued to the adjacent land owner as per
Annexure-J bearing No.Bengaluru/VBUSWA/ /2017-
18 dated 05-09-2017 with all eligible solatium and
interest after hearing the petitioner. Alternatively,
direct the 4th respondent to pass an award under the
right to fair compensation and transparency in Land
Acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013.
(c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the circumstances of the case including
cost of this writ petition."
4
2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner; Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondents
2 to 4.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The petitioner - Chaya is the owner of the lands bearing
Sl.Nos.154, 157 and 158 of Arisinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, totally measuring 12
acres ('the subject land' for short), who is represented by her
General Power of Attorney ('GPA' for short) holder - Ramesh G.
Chandiramani. The history to the present rejection dates back
to 1974. The subject land was originally acquired by 3 persons in
different auctions held by the Government of Karnataka between
29-04-1974 and 30-04-1974. All three lands were purchased by
the petitioner represented by the GPA holder on 24-07-1986.
During subsistence of the ownership of the petitioner, the
Government of Karnataka issues a preliminary notification dated
07-07-1994, for the purpose of acquisition of several parcels of land
5
in Devanahalli area including the subject land of the petitioner for
construction of Bangalore International Airport. After two years, a
final notification also comes to be issued on 08-08-1996 under
Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The name of
the petitioner is also notified in the final notification, which could be
gathered at Sl.Nos.221, 224 and 225 and she is described as the
owner of the land measuring 12 acres.
4. After the final notification being issued, compensation was
determined by passing an award. On 22-09-2001, the petitioner's
claim for release of the award amount is declined to by the
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Board' for short) on the score that she is not entitled to
any compensation as the name of the petitioner was illegally
entered into in the revenue documents. This is challenged by the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.40911 of 2003 and the endorsement
comes to be quashed, with a direction to the Special Land
Acquisition Officer ('SLAO'), KIADB to refer the matter to the civil
Court under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, within three months,
6
since there was rival claim for payment of compensation. During
the pendency of LAC proceedings in LAC No.191 of 2006 owing to
the dispute, the Board passes a zero award disputing the title of the
petitioner. After passing of the said zero award, the SLAO of the
Board took possession of the land by drawing up a mahazar and
possession proceedings. The drawal of zero award comes to be
challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.43919 of 2011. A
learned single Judge allows the writ petition in terms of his order
dated 13-02-2012 holding that the Court would not be in a position
to decide the entitlement of the compensation and it can only be
done by a reference Court in the LAC pending in LAC No.191 of
2006 and if the petitioner succeeds in proving her title in the said
LAC, she would be entitled to compensation and the Board would
determine and pass an award accordingly.
5. After the order so passed by the learned single Judge as
noted hereinabove, in the reference, the civil Court renders its
judgment holding that the petitioner is the absolute owner and is
entitled to the compensation. Pending determination of the
compensation, a new Land Acquisition Act comes into force on
7
01-01-2014 i.e., The Land Acquisition Act, 2013. But, the Board
files a Miscellaneous Appeal against the order passed by the LAC
Court in M.A.No.15022 of 2014. Since the Board failed to
determine the compensation despite LAC proceedings, the
petitioner files Writ Petition No.8302 of 2013 for issuance of a
direction for consideration of the representation seeking
determination of compensation at ₹70/- lakhs per acre along with
interest. The said writ petition comes to be disposed of on
03-09-2014 directing determination of appropriate compensation.
Pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ
Petition No.8302 of 2013, a reference is then made in LAC No.29 of
2015 under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. The SLAO of the Board
passes an award of compensation at ₹60 lakhs in total, at a rate of
₹5/- lakhs per acre and deposits the same in LAC Court in LAC
No.29 of 2015. The petitioner's contention is that she never
agreed.
6. On 17-10-2015, an appeal in Miscellaneous Appeal
No.15022 of 2014 filed by the Board against the order passed in
LAC 191 of 2006, comes to be dismissed. Therefore, the finding
8
that Smt.Chaya, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject
land attained finality. The petitioner then files an application under
Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'L.A.Act')
before the Board, requesting the Board to make a reference to the
civil Court under Section 18(2) of the L.A.Act for determination of
actual compensation, since the award passed was on the lower
side. The Board did not accede to the request of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner again approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.47060 of 2016, which comes to be disposed of, holding
that the petitioner had the opportunity of alternative remedy to be
availed under Section 18(3)(b) of the L.A.Act and also to seek
enhancement of compensation. In respect of the same notification,
it appears that the Special Deputy Commissioner of the Board had
determined compensation at ₹93,00,000/- per acre with respect to
adjacent land and passed an award thereto. This is again agitated
to before the reference Court by filing an application by the Board,
which comes to be rejected. All these reach this Court in Writ
Petition No.14559 of 2021, which was filed by the SLAO seeking
stay of proceedings in LAC No.33 of 2017, on the score that the
land of the petitioner was not acquired as the lands were denotified.
9
Since no compensation was yet determined, the petitioner
approached this Court in Writ Petition No.7875 of 2022 for re-
delivery of the property to the hands of the petitioner as even on
the said date no award was passed. In the proceedings i.e., in Writ
Petition No.7875 of 2022, the Board informs that it has not de-
notified the subject land but no award was passed in the case of the
petitioner. The petition filed by the Board in Writ Petition
No.14559 of 2021 comes to be disposed of on 02-12-2022
directing the respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the said order, the impugned award notice comes to be
issued determining compensation at ₹20,640/- per acre, while
determining compensation of ₹93,00,000/- per acre for the
identical land notified in the same notification of the same area.
Aggrieved by the impugned award notice, the petitioner is before
this Court in the subject petition seeking the afore-quoted prayers.
7. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the award passed
by the SLAO - 4th respondent is on the face of it illegal, as the
10
award is passed without determining the value of the property and
suffers from non-application of mind, particularly when the 4th
respondent on an earlier occasion deposited ₹5/- lakhs
compensation per acre. But, the award today indicates ₹20,640/-
per acre. The award passed is in violation of the principles of
natural justice and the procedure contemplated in law under
Sections 11 and 12 of the old Act or the new L.A.Act, have not been
followed at all. The award is on the face of it discriminatory as the
same Officer awarded ₹93,00,000/- compensation per acre in
respect of the adjacent lands concerning the same notification and
the petitioner is denied from utilizing the land since 07-07-1994.
Therefore, he submits that the petitioner should be compensated
even under the said L.A.Act. The award is now passed after a lapse
of 27 years from the date of issuance of final notification and is in
violation of law.
8. The learned senior counsel submits that even in 2001 and
2002, the market value of the property was ₹70/- lakhs per acre
and a meagre sum of ₹20,640/- per acre today is determined, for a
land which values at ₹50/- crores, should shock the conscience of
11
this Court. The learned senior counsel has placed a memo along
with documents to demonstrate that adjacent lands which are
subject matter of acquisition have huge value today. He would
seek appropriate direction in the given set of facts.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri P.V.Chandrashekar
appearing for the Board and Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would in unison
contend that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner
has an alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the quantum of the
market value determined and indicated in the award. The
petitioner is not entitled to compensation under the new Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 on the score that there was delay in passing
the award which was only due to pending litigation. The petitioner
has failed to take all the contentions that is now raised in the earlier
three rounds of litigations. The petitioner has failed to challenge the
general award but only challenged an award notice under Section
12(2) of the Act. What the SLAO has determined is on the basis of
two sale agreements entered into by the petitioner herself, who had
12
agreed to sell these very lands on 09-12-1993 and 09-09-1994 at
₹25,000/- per acre. That is the best piece of evidence to
demonstrate that as on the date of the preliminary notification, the
market value was ₹20,640/- per acre. The non-passing of the
award is only due to rival claims springing from time to time. They
would seek dismissal of the petition and directing the petitioner to
avail of the remedy before the reference Court.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record. In furtherance whereof, the issue that falls for
consideration is, whether the land of the petitioner being acquired,
has merited adequate compensation in accordance with law?
11. The history is narrated hereinabove. The orders passed
from time to time by the learned single Judges of this Court would
become necessary to be noticed. The Board issued a preliminary
notification for acquisition of lands in the area surrounding the land
of the petitioner for the purpose of construction of Bangalore
International Airport. The preliminary notification included the
lands of the petitioner. A final notification also comes to be issued
13
in which the lands of the petitioner also did figure. The final
notification is appended to the petition. The lands of the petitioner
are found at Sl.Nos.221, 224 and 225. After issuance of the final
notification, award appears to have been drawn and no
compensation is paid to the petitioner on the score that there is a
dispute in title. This is challenged before this Court in Writ Petition
No.40911 of 2003. A learned single Judge of this Court allows the
petition; quashes the endorsement and directs reference of the
matter to the civil Court for resolution of the dispute as there was a
rival claim. The order dated 21-11-2003 passed in Writ Petition
No.40911 of 2003, reads as follows:
"The case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute
owner of the lands in Sy.No. 154 measuring 4 acres, Sy.No. 157
measuring 4 acres and Sy.No. 158 measuring 4 acres situated
at Arashinakunte village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore District
and the said lands were acquired by the KIADB for the purpose
of International Air port. In the notification, the name of the
petitioner is shown as the owner of the land in question. It is
also not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer issued
notices under Section 9 & 10 of the Act to the petitioner in a
proceeding relating to passing of the award. After the passing of
the award, when the petitioner has made a claim for payment,
she has been issued with an endorsement stating her claim has
been rejected for the reasons stated in the said endorsement.
This endorsement is under challenged by the petitioner in this
writ petition.
2. Sri. Hinchegeri, learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent submitted that one Chinnappa, S/o. Late
14
Munishamappa is also claiming compensation in respect
of the acquisition of the above said lands and therefore, it
is not possible to consider the case of the petitioner as
there is a rival claim. It is further submitted that the
Government record disclosed that the petitioner has
purchased the property from the person who had no title
to the property. When there is such a serious dispute
regarding title to the property, for the purpose of
withdrawing the compensation awarded, it is just and
necessary for the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the
dispute to the Civil Court under Section 30 & 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the following order:
(a) Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) The endorsement issued by the Land Acquisition
Officer under Annexure 'E' is quashed.
(c) Further, the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to
refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section
30 & 31 of the Act as there is a rival claim for
payment of compensation, expeditiously as
possible not later than three months from today."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the interregnum, possession of the land is taken by the
SLAO of the Board by passing a zero award. This again becomes
the subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition
No.43919 of 2011, which comes to be disposed of on 13-02-2012,
by the following order:
15
".... .... ....
In view of the aforementioned order of this Court, the
petitioner has filed petition before the Reference Court under
Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is relevant to
note that one Mr.Chinnappa, s/o Munishamappa also had
claimed compensation in respect of the aforementioned lands.
3. During the pendency of the said matter before the
Reference Court in LAC.No.191/2006, the petitioner came to
know that already an award came to be passed in respect of
various lands, including the lands bearing Survey Nos.154, 157
and 158 of Arashinakunte village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore
District. However, the compensation granted in favour of the
petitioner is Nil. This is because, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer has concluded that the petitioner is not the real owner of
the property and the entries made in the name of the petitioner
are bogus. Such an award relating to Nil compensation is
questioned in this writ petition on the ground that the Land
Acquisition Officer could not have passed such an award at all.
4. Sri A.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Land Acquisition
Officer ought to have passed an award and ought to have
withheld payment of compensation till the dispute under Section
30 and 31 of L.A. Act is resolved, in other words, it is contended
on behalf of the petitioner that the Land Acquisition Officer after
determining the compensation, ought to have deposited the
compensation amount in the Court for the purpose of
disbursement of compensation depending upon the decision in
LAC.No.191/2006.
The writ petition is opposed by Sri P.V.Chandrashekar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Karnataka Industrial
Areas Development Board (KIADB) contending that based on
the Nil award made in favour of the petitioner, the matter is
referred to Civil Court for adjudication in LAC.No.191/2006.
According to him, it is open for the petitioner to prove before
the said Court that she is the owner of the properties in
question and consequently, she is entitled to compensation
16
5. The question as to whether the petitioner is
entitled to compensation or not is to be determined by
the Civil Court in LAC.No.191/2006. The said question
therefore will not be decided in writ proceedings. If the
petitioner is able to prove that she is legally the owner of
the properties in question, she would naturally be
entitled for the compensation in respect of the acquired
lands. If she fails to prove that she is the owner of the
properties in question, she will not get any compensation.
Ultimately, the entitlement of compensation would
depend upon the result of the matter in
LAC.No.191/2006. Therefore, this Court desists from
making any observations on the merits of the matter in
that aspect.
6. However, it is needless to observe that in case if
the petitioner succeeds in LAC. No.191/2006, such order
would be an executable decree and the same can be
executed. At that point of time, the KIADB will have to
determine the compensation and pass award in
accordance with law.
With these observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of."
(Emphasis supplied)
The learned Judge in the afore-quoted order notices the
earlier order quoted supra and observes that, in case the petitioner
succeeds in LAC No.191 of 2006 such order would be an executable
decree and the same can be executed, at which point in time the
Board should determine the compensation and pass award in
accordance with law. The LAC Court in LAC No.191 of 2006 now
gives a finding that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land
17
in terms of its judgment dated 31-05-2012, by the following
observation:
".... .... ....
19. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the claimant no.1 has established
and proved that she is the absolute owner of the landed
properties under acquisition. There are abundant
materials furnished by the claimant no.1 to prove her
ownership over the lands under acquisition. All the
documentary evidence placed by the claimant no.1 are
the public documents maintained by the revenue
authorities and the source of title is clear. Though the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has concluded that the
claimant no.1 herein is not the real owner of the property
under acquisition and the entries made in the name of
claimant no.1 are bogus, but the same is without any
basis. The claimants no.2 to 6 as well as the respondent
have not placed any iota of evidence to disprove the claim
of the claimant no.1. All the documentary evidence
furnished by the claimant no.1 have got presumptive
value under the Indian Evidence Act and the claimants
no.2 to 6 and the respondent have failed to rebut the said
presumption. Under such circumstances, it can be safely
held that the claimant no.1 herself is the absolute owner
of the lands under acquisition and she alone is entitled to
the compensation amount. Hence, I answer the point no.1 in
the 'affirmative' and point no.2 in the 'negative'.
20. Point No.3:- Since I have answered point no.1 in
favour of the claimant no.1 and point no.2 in the negative, the
claimant no.1 alone is entitled for the entire compensation
amount in respect of the properties under acquisition and hence,
I pass the following order;
ORDER
The reference is allowed with costs in favour of claimant
no.1 and dismissed against the claimants no.2 to 6.
It is hereby further declared that the claimant no.1 alone
is entitled for the compensation amount to be awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, K.I.A.D.B.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.100/-.
Draw award accordingly."
(Emphasis added)
The reference was allowed in favour of the claimant i.e., the
petitioner. No compensation is determined even then. The
petitioner again approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.8302 of
2013. Another learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the
said petition in terms of the order dated 03-09-2014 with the
following direction:
".... .... ....
6. Therefore respondent No. 3 is directed to
consider and determine the appropriate compensation
that is payable in respect of the property bearing survey
No. 154 measuring 4 acres, survey No. 157 measuring 4
acres and survey No. 158 measuring 4 acres situate at
Arishiankunte village, Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore
district. On determination of the amount compensation,
the award shall be passed thereto, but if in the
meanwhile the proceedings relating to L.A.C. No.
191/2006 remains inconclusive either due to pendency of
appeal or the LAC being restored, at that stage, the
disbursement need not be made and respondent Nos. 2
and 3 would have the liberty of placing the amount
determined therein in a Bank deposit separately or
referring the matter to the Civil Court as provided under
Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Needless
to mention, if in the meanwhile the judgment passed in
L.A.C. No. 191/2006 dated 31.05.2012 attains finality
without any modification, in such event the amount shall
be disbursed to the petitioner."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the interregnum, the SLAO of the Board appears to have
issued a notification of determination of compensation of lands
adjacent to the land of the petitioner, which are subject matter of
same notification at the following price:
".... .... ....
ಸ ಾಸ ದರ ಎಕ ೆ 1 ೆ ರೂ.2,74,94,000 = 2,32,507,39
118 ¼
2,32,507.39X40 ಗುಂ ೆ = 93,00,295.98
ಎಕ ೆ 1 ೆ ಸ ಾಸ ೆ ೆ ರೂ.93,00,296/-. ಆ ರುತ ೆ.
ಎಕ ೆ 1 ೆ ಸ ೕಪದ ೆ ೆ ರೂ.93.00 ಲ ಆ ರುತ ೆ."
In the light of the afore-quoted calculation, ₹93,00,000/- is
determined per acre by the Board. The Board then passes a
general award directing it to be a consent award. The amount
determined by the SLAO of the Board as compensation towards the
acquisition of the land of the petitioner would undoubtedly shocks
anybody's conscience as the amount determined is ₹20,640/- per
acre. The proceedings before the LAC Court in LAC No.33 of 2017
was challenged insofar as an application so filed by the petitioner
for determination of compensation on par with what was
determined earlier. The application comes to be allowed. During
the pendency of the proceedings, an application is filed by the
Board seeking rejection of the reference under Order VII Rule 11
(d) of the CPC, in LAC.No.33/2017. This comes to be rejected on
27.02.2020. The rejection of which is challenged before this Court
by the Board in Writ Petition No.14559 of 2021. The writ petition
comes to be allowed. The observations assume certain significance.
They read as follows:
".... .... ....
4. A perusal of the material on record including the
impugned order on I.A.No.4 passed by the reference Court
coupled with the specific stand taken by the petitioner in the
affidavit in support of I.A.No.4 as well as in their pleadings,
documents, etc., clearly establish that the petitioner has not
passed any award so far in relation to the subject land. In fact,
the only contention urged by the petitioner is that the
compensation determined and fixed by the Price Advisory
Committee at Rs.5 lakhs per acre has been deposited with
consent of respondent No.1 by the petitioner in LAC
No.29/2015 However, in the absence of any material to
establish the alleged consent, the said contention of the
petitioner that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs per acre was
deposited with the alleged consent given by respondent
No.1 cannot be accepted.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
reference Court will clearly indicate that having come to
the specific conclusion that there was no award passed
by the petitioner or respondent No.2 / State, the
reference Court clearly misdirected itself in rejecting
I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner without considering or
appreciating the undisputed fact that in the absence of
any award being passed by the petitioner or respondent
No.2, the question of continuing the reference
proceedings would not arise. Under these circumstances, in
the light of the undisputed material on record, which clearly
establishes that no award as required in law has been passed by
the petitioner or respondent No.2 so far, I am of the
considered opinion that the impugned order passed by
the reference Court rejecting I.A.No.4 deserves to be set
aside and I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner deserves to be
allowed and necessary directions be issued to the
petitioner and respondent No.2 to pass appropriate
award in accordance with law.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.02.2020
passed on I.A.No.4 in LAC No.33/2017 is hereby set
aside.
(iii) Consequently, I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner in
LAC No.33/2017 stands allowed and all further proceedings in
LAC No.33/2017 are directed to be closed.
(iv) Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the
compensation deposited by it in LAC No.29/2015, if not already
withdrawn as on today.
(v) Petitioner is directed to pass an award in relation to
the subject land of respondent No.1 in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
(Emphasis supplied)
The coordinate bench in the afore-quoted order holds that on
a perusal of the material on record, it is indicative of the fact that
the compensation is determined and fixed by the Price Advisory
Committee at ₹5/- lakhs per acre and has been deposited with the
consent of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is the present
petitioner. In the absence of any material to establish the consent
of the petitioner, the said contention of the Board that a sum of
₹5/-lakhs was deposited with the alleged consent given by the 1st
respondent (petitioner) was unacceptable is what the coordinate
bench holds.
12. The petitioner again submits a representation before the
SLAO to determine compensation appropriately. The representation
is necessary to be noticed. It reads as follows:
"As you are aware you have acquired our land for Bengaluru
International Airport Authority as per final notification dated
08.08.1996.
Since preliminary notification dated 07.07.1994 I am deprived
of utilizing the said land. However till today you have not
passed an award in respect of the said land. After several
round of litigation as per order made in W.P No.
14559/2021 the Hon'ble High Court directed you to pass
an award in respect of the land in question within period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the
order in accordance with law.
As you are aware as per amendment of Sec 30 of the KIADB Act
1966, now the award is required to be passed as per sec 23 of
the right to fair compensation and transparency in land
acquisition rehabilitation and resettlement act 2013, (herein
after called as new act). Since award is not passed till today we
are eligible for compensation, interest and other benefit as
provided under the new act.
As you are aware in the said locality allotment rate of
KIADB land is Rs.3.5 Crore per acre. Since my land is
utilized for runway for international airport I am entitle
at least Rs. 3.5 Crore per acre with interest and all other
benefits since 08.08.1996.
Therefore I request your good self to award compensation as
early as possible with all eligible benefits under the new act.
Thanking you
Your sincerely
Sd/-
Ramesh G. Chandiramani
(For Chaya)"
(Emphasis added)
This is followed by another representation. It appears that in
identical circumstances, a coordinate bench determines
compensation for lands taken in possession in the year 2007 by the
Board, notwithstanding the delay in approaching the Court. This
would not be of much significance for determination of the case of
the petitioner at this juncture. What drives the petitioner to this
Court is the award notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Act.
The award notice determines ₹20,640/- compensation per acre.
13. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner inter alia is that, the petitioner was not heard prior to
issuance of the award notice. Therefore, it becomes a case where
the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity prior to issuance of
award notice under Section 12 of the Act. In this regard, statutory
scheme is necessary to be noticed. Sections 11 and 12 of the
L.A.Act read as follows:
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector. - (1) On the day
so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been
adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the
objection (if any) which any person interested has stated
pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements
made under section 8, and into the value of the land [at the
date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-
section (1), and into the respective interests of the persons
claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his
hand of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be
allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among
all the persons known or believed to be interested
in the land, or whom, or of whose claims, he has
information, whether or not they have respectively
appeared before him :
Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector
under this sub-section without the previous approval of the
appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate
Government may authorize in this behalf:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the
appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make
such award without such approval in such class of cases as the
appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied
that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before
him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the
award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by
the appropriate Government, he may, without making further
enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such
agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under
sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of
compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or
elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under
subsection (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.
.... .... ....
12. Award of Collector when to be final. - (1) Such
award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as
hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as
between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they
have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the
true area and value of the land, and the appointment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award
to such of the persons interested as are not present personally
or by their representatives when the award is made."
Sections 11 and 12 of the Act have been interpreted by the
Apex Court and therefore, delving deep in to the matter would not
be necessary. The Apex Court in the case of BAILAMMA v.
POORNAPRAJNA HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY1,
has held as follows:
".... .... ....
6. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is that if
a declaration is published under Section 6 of the Act, the
Collector is to take an order for acquisition of the lands notified.
For this purpose, the Collector is required to demarcate the
lands proposed to be acquired, get the same measured and a
plan to be prepared as required to be done by Sections 7 and 8
of the Act. Under Section 9 the Collector is required to get
published a public notice stating that the Government intends to
take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for
all interested in such land may be made to him. The notice must
enumerate the particulars mentioned in sub-section (2) of
Section 9 of the Act. The said notice must also be served on the
persons interested as provided in sub-sections (3) and (4) of
Section 9. After notices have been issued under Section 9 of the
Act, the Collector proceeds to enquire into all the matters
specified in Section 11 of the Act. Sections 11, 11-A and 12 of
the Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act,
(2006) 2 SCC 416
1984 are crucial for deciding the questions involved in these
appeals. They provide as follows:
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector.--(1) On the
day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry
has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to
enquire into the objections (if any) which any person
interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under
Section 9 to the measurements made under Section 8,
and into the value of the land at the date of the
publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-
section (1), and into the respective interests of the
persons claiming the compensation and shall make an
award under his hand of--
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be
allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation
among all the persons known or believed to be
interested in the land, of whom, or of whose
claims, he has information, whether or not they
have respectively appeared before him:
Provided that no award shall be made by the
Collector under this sub-section without the previous
approval of the appropriate Government or of such
officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in
this behalf:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the
appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may
make such award without such approval in such class of
cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this
behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the
Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in
the land who appeared before him have agreed in
writing on the matters to be included in the award of the
Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the
appropriate Government, he may, without making
further enquiry, make an award according to the terms
of such agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any
land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect
the determination of compensation in respect of other
lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance
with the other provisions of this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement
made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration
under that Act.
11-A. Period within which an award shall be
made.--(1) The Collector shall make an award under
Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of
the publication of the declaration and if no award is
made within that period, the entire proceedings for the
acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration
has been published before the commencement of the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award
shall be made within a period of two years from such
commencement.
Explanation.--In computing the period of two
years referred to in this section, the period during which
any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the
said declaration is stayed by an order of a court shall be
excluded.
12. Award of Collector when to be final.--(1)
Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and
shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and
conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the
persons interested, whether they have respectively
appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area
and value of the land, and apportionment of the
compensation among the persons interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of
his award to such of the persons interested as are not
present personally or by their representatives when the
award is made."
7. Section 11 envisages that an enquiry may not be
concluded on the very first day and, therefore, authorises
the Collector to adjourn the considerations of objections
to any day fixed in the notice. However, after considering
the objections he is obliged to make an award under his
hand regarding (i) the true area of the land; (ii) the
compensation which in his opinion should be allowed;
and (iii) the apportionment of the compensation amongst
the persons interested.
... ... ...
14. Reliance was placed by the appellants on the
observations made by this Court in Yusufbhai Noormohmed
Nendoliya v. State of Gujarat [(1991) 4 SCC 531] . In our view
the aforesaid decision in fact supports the case of the
respondents. In the aforesaid judgment it was held: (SCC p.
535, para 8)
"8. The said Explanation is in the widest possible
terms and, in our opinion, there is no warrant for
limiting the action or proceedings referred to in the
Explanation to actions or proceedings preceding the
making of the award under Section 11 of the said Act."
That was no doubt a case where an order of injunction was
obtained by the landholder restraining land acquisition
authorities from taking possession of the land. It was, in that
context, that this Court observed that to get the benefit of the
said provision the landholder who seeks the benefit must not
have obtained any order from court restraining any action or
proceedings in pursuance of declaration under Section 6 of the
Act. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission urged
on behalf of the appellants that Section 11-A of the Act must be
read in a narrow sense so as to apply to only those cases where
the landowner himself obtained an order of stay or injunction.
We are not prepared to add words in the Explanation by reading
into it a provision that gives to the Explanation a narrower
operation than what was intended for it by the legislature, so as
to apply only to cases where an order of injunction is obtained
by the landowner and not by anyone else.
... ... ...
24. Section 11 of the Act requires the Collector to make
an enquiry into the objections, if any, made by the persons
interested pursuant to the notices given under Sections 8 and 9
of the Act as to the value of the land on the date of publication
of the notification under Section 4. He is also required to make
an enquiry into the respective interest of the persons claiming
the compensation. After considering the objections raised by the
persons interested he is required to make an award under his
hand which should contain his findings on the matters
enumerated in (i), (ii) and (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 11.
The proviso to Section 11, however, mandates that the Collector
shall not make an award under this sub-section without previous
approval of the appropriate Government.
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
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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that Section 11 of the L.A.Act requires
the Collector to make an enquiry into the objections, if any, made
by the person interested, pursuant to the notice given under
Sections 8 and 9 of the L.A.Act and the Collector is required to hear
the persons interested and to enquire into those objections that are
filed.
14. The contention of the petitioner is that, she has not been
rendered any opportunity prior to issuance of the award notice. On
this short ground, the matter requires to be remitted back to the
hands of the 4th respondent/SLAO of the Board to hear the
objections of the petitioner, if she has so filed as obtaining in law
and as laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment quoted supra.
In the peculiar facts of this Court, as the compensation determined
is abysmally low, I permit the petitioner to file a representation, if
not already filed, and the SLAO to hear the petitioner on the
objections and then proceed in the matter. While doing so, the
SLAO shall bear in mind that ownership of the petitioner has
attained finality; adjacent lands have been determined at a
particular rate of compensation; the Board through the SLAO had
itself deposited ₹5/- lakhs per acre in LAC No.29/2015, which the
coordinate bench notices supra; appropriately determine
compensation for the lands acquired and then issue notice of award
under Section 12(2) of the L.A.Act.
15. All statutory remedies available to the petitioner would be
open to be availed of as what is challenged in the case at hand is
the award notice issued under Section 12(2) of the L.A.Act and
seeking a mandamus to pass an award akin to what is passed for
the adjacent lands of land owners.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition stands disposed.
(ii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the 4th
respondent - SLAO of the Board to hear the
petitioner on the objections filed, if she has so filed.
(iii) In the event no objections are filed, the petitioner is
permitted to submit a representation and the SLAO
shall consider the same, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order with
particular reference to paragraph No.14.
(iv) The petitioner is at liberty to avail all statutory
remedies as available in law, as what is challenged is
only an award notice.
Ordered accordingly.
All pending I.As' stand disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ
