Writ Appeal No. 568 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 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 Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
1. SRI. A.S. VEDHAMURTHY 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB WA No. 568 of 2022 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
Decision
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, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB WA No. 568 of 2022 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. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB WA No. 568 of 2022 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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB WA No. 568 of 2022 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, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB WA No. 568 of 2022 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. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB WA No. 568 of 2022 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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:1875-DB WA No. 568 of 2022 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5