Writ Petition No. 4600 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4982 WP No. 4600 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4600 OF 2022 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
R P RAMAIAH S/O LATE B PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O NO.222, SRISADANA 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR TUMAKURU-572 103. (BY SRI. YOGESH U KOTEMATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH.,ADVOCATE …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNSTAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR-572 101. 3. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4982 WP No. 4600 of 2022 4. THE SPECIAL LAO TUMKUR RAYADURGA NEW BROAD GAGE RAILWAY PROJECT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR-572 105. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY KESHAVAPURA HUBLI-580 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIG, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED ON 23.10.2013 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-A.QUASH THE AWARD NOTICE DTD 30.12.2013 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.149/3, measuring 19 guntas situated at Tumakuru Amanikere (Part-2), Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk which is acquired for the purpose of Tumakuru - Rayadurga Broad Gauge Railway Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide preliminary notification dated 29.09.2011 and the final - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4982 WP No. 4600 of 2022 notification dated 15.06.2012, is before this Court contending that by the time the final notification and award came to be passed on 23.10.2013, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013') had come into force, as such the petitioner was entitled to the compensation in terms of the said Act, 2013. 2. Sri. Yogesh U Kotemoth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the matter is covered by the Order dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the writ petition No.23524- 23537/2014 and 26802-26807/2014 which has been followed by the another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.06.2019 in W.P.No.1087-91/2018 C/w 49831- 834/2017 and 52811-812/2017. Hence, seeks for extending similar relief for the petitioner as well. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the same. 4. This Court under identical facts situation of the matter, taking note of the aforesaid aspects with respect to the very - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4982 WP No. 4600 of 2022 same acquisition had allowed the writ petition by setting aside the award and directing the Competent authority to pass fresh award in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2013. It has also made clear if the compensation, if any has been received by the petitioner, the same was to be deducted while re- determining the compensation under the Act, 2013. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under: '' 7. Now the Court is required to examine whether the impugned award notices are sustainable and if they are not sustainable what relief is to be given to the petitioners. To answer this question, the advertence is required to be made to the provisions contained in Section 24 of the 2013 Act: “24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.– (1) xxxxxxxxxxxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act: lapsed and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4982 WP No. 4600 of 2022 Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been the account of deposited the in then, all beneficiaries beneficiaries, specified for notification in acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” the the commencement of 8. The perusal of the afore-extracted provisions reveals that if compensation amounts in respect of majority of land holdings are not deposited as on the date of the said Act (1.1.2014), then the compensation is required to be determined as per the provisions of the said 2013 Act. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the compensation amount in respect of the majority of land holdings is not deposited. The compensation amounts are deposited only in respect of 9 acres 34½ guntas out of the acquired extent measuring 47 acres 24¾ guntas. As the afore-extracted provisions are attracted to the facts of this case, I quash the impugned award notices and direct the respondent No.4 or any other concerned functionary to re- determine the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of four months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today’s order. 9. Needless to observe that if any of the petitioners has already received the compensation, that amount has to be deducted from the amounts to be re- determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. '' 5. Petitioner being similarly situated, this Court do not see any reason to differ from the same. Accordingly, petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4982 WP No. 4600 of 2022 Respondent-Authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid directions issued by this Court in the order dated 21.07.2016 passed in writ petition No.23524-23537/2014 and 26802-26807/2014 and order dated 19.06.2019 in W.P.No.1087-91/2018 C/w 49831-834/2017 and 52811-812/2017. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37