Karnataka High Court
Nandi Infrastructure Corridor ... vs Government Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2013
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H BILLAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P Nos.35638-639/2012 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor
Enterprise Limited
No.1, Midford House
Midford garden
Off Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bangalore-560 001
Represented by its
Authorised Signatory
MR.D.Ravisankar.
2. Nandi Economic Corridor
Enterprises Limited
No.1, Midford House
Midford garden
Off Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bangalore-560 001
Represented by its
Authorised Signatory
2
MR.D.Ravisankar. ... Petitioners
(By Sri.R.V.S Naik and Nitin Prasad, Advocates for
M/s King and Partridge, Advocates, Associates)
AND:
1. Government of Karnataka
Represented by Principal Secretary
Commerce and Industries Department
Vikasa Soudha,
Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Board, No. 14/3,
Rashtrothana parishat Building
Nrupathunga road
Bangalore-560 001
Represented by its
Chief executive officer and
Executive member
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer-1,
BMICP
No.2, 3rd floor,
Mourya Mansion
Gandhinagar
Bangalore-560 009.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer-2,
BMICP
No.2, 3rd floor,
Mourya Mansion
3
Gandhinagar
Bangalore-560 009. ....Respondents
(By Sri.Sandeep Patil, Advocate for R-1;
Sri. Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel for
Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for R-2 to R-4;
Sri. Ashwin Prabhu, Advocate for proposed R-5 and
R-6;
Sri.Kesvy & Co. Associates for proposed R-7 to
R-10)
These petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227
of Constitution of India, praying to direct the
respondents to pass an award and pay compensation to
the land losers in respect of the lands listed at
Annexure-A in accordance with law within a reasonable
time.
These petitions coming for Dictating Judgment
this day, BILLAPPA J., made the following:
ORDER
In these writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass awards and pay compensation to the land losers in respect of the lands mentioned in Annexure-A. 4
2. Preliminary notification dated 19.12.1998 and various other dates till 23.03.2009 have been issued by the first respondent under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') in respect of the lands mentioned in Annexure-A. Thereafter, final notification dated 18.02.2003 and various other dates till 2.6.2009 have been issued by first respondent under Section 28(4) of the Act in respect of the lands mentioned in Annexure-A. Lands mentioned in Annexure-A have been acquired and possession has been taken. Thereafter, the lands have been handed over to the second petitioner vide possession certificates dated 18.10.2003 and other dates till 07.07.2012. Thereafter, the second petitioner has addressed a letter dated 01.07.2009 to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member of the second respondent requesting to pass awards and to pay compensation to the land losers. 5 Thereafter, one more letter dated 17.02.2011 has been sent to the Principal Secretary, PWD, Government of Karnataka requesting that non-passing of the awards be included in the Agenda. Thereafter, on 16.03.2012 one more letter has been sent to the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member of the second respondent requesting to pass awards. In spite of that, awards have not been passed. Therefore, these writ petitions.
3. The respondents-2 to 4 have filed their statement of objections contending that the writ petitions are not maintainable and they are liable to be rejected. It is stated, the Principal Secretary, PWD, Government of Karnataka has filed an affidavit before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt proceedings wherein it has been stated that as per the frame work agreement and the judgment in Somashekar Reddy's case an extent of 2193 acres of land has to be given for 6 peripheral road, whereas, total extent of 2747 acres of land has been handed over i.e., 554 acres of land in excess. The farmers whose lands are sought to be acquired for Sections B & C of the project have started agitating. They are not permitting the Government officials to survey and demarcate the extent required unless indicative land price to be paid to them is disclosed first.
4. Further, it is stated that in the meeting held on 08.08.2011 it was resolved to identify the excess land handed over. The respondents requested the PWD department to indicate the excess of land handed over by demarcating it. A letter dated 30.08.2011 was written by the Principal Secretary, PWD. The matter was followed up with the Project Co-ordinator BMICPA on 24.01.2012. It is stated, the respondents have not received the information. Therefore, respondents are 7 awaiting information. The petitioners were not justified in filing the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions may be dismissed.
5. In the additional statement of objections, in addition to the contentions already raised, a tabular statement has been furnished showing the details of the lands acquired possession taken and consent given by the land owners as per Annexures-R-6, 7, 8 & 9. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.
6. I.A.I/13 has been filed by the applicants praying to implead them as parties to these writ petitions. It is stated that the applicants are the owners of Sy.No.64/1 of Gottigere village and they have preferred appeals in Civil Appeal No.761/2013 and the petitioners have preferred SLP Nos.36477/2011. Stay has not been granted. SLP has been admitted and re- 8 numbered as Civil Appeal No.975/2013. Therefore, the applicants have prayed to implead them as parties to the proceedings.
7. I.A.2/13 has been filed by the applicants praying to implead them as parties to the proceedings. It is stated that the applicants are owners of Sy.No.44/1 of Madavara village measuring 2 acres 23 guntas. The applicants father has not challenged the acquisition proceedings insofar as it relates to Sy.No.44/1 of Madavara village is concerned. Civil appeals are pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP Nos.29707- 11/2011. It is stated, the land in Sy.No.44/1 of Madavara village was part of 550 acres of land which has been handed over in excess. The lands pertaining to the applicants cannot be acquired. Therefore, applicants 9 have prayed to implead them as parties to the proceedings.
8. I.A.3/13 has been filed by the applicants praying to implead them as parties to the proceedings. It is stated that the applicants are the owners of the land in Sy.No.34/3 of Doddathogur village. It comes within 554 acres of land which has been handed over in excess for the peripheral road. The Impleading applicants are necessary parties to the proceedings and therefore, they may be impleaded. It is also stated, the impleading applicants have filed Review Petition.
9. I.A.4/13 has been filed by the respondents-2 and 3 to implead PWD as party to the proceedings. It is stated that PWD is a nodal agency and it has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that excess of 10 land has been handed over without specifying the details and unless PWD demarcates the excess of land, it is difficult to take further action. Therefore, PWD is a necessary party to the proceedings and it may be impleaded.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that land has been acquired for BMIC project and challenge to the acquisition proceedings has come to an end and possession of the land has been handed over and road has been formed. The petitioners have deposited a huge sum of Rs.213 Crores towards compensation. In spite of that, without any valid reason, the respondents have failed to pass the awards. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to pass the awards. Placing reliance on the decisions reported in (1980) 3 SCC Page 233- HIMALAYAN TILES & MARBLE 11 PRIVATE LIMTED vs FRANCIS VICTOR COUTINHO, reported in (1990) 3 SCC page 617 NEELANGANGABAI & ANOTHER vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, reported in (1994)6 SCC page 74 N KRISHNAMACHARI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD & OTHERS, reported in (1995)1 SCC page 221 NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED vs SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) and reported in (2011)2 SCC page 54 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs BHOLA NATH SHARMA & OTHERS, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners being beneficiaries are interested persons and they can maintain the writ petitions.
11. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the question of excess of land has been considered in M NAGABHUSHANA vs 12 STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in (2011)3 SCC page 408 and Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the contention and observed that the State Government should complete the project as early as possible and should not do anything including releasing any land acquired for the project as it may impede the completion of the project and would not be compatible with the larger public interest which the project is intended to serve.
12. Inviting our attention to the observations made in the contempt proceedings in Civil Appeal Nos.3492-3294/2005, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that no land shall be denotified by the state Government until further orders.
13
13. Therefore, there is no valid reason for the respondents to postpone the passing of the awards in respect of the lands mentioned in Annexure-A. Therefore, the respondents-3 and 4 may be directed to pass the awards and pay compensation to the land losers.
14. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents-1 to 4 submitted that petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. Inviting our attention to Section 29 of the KIADB Act, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that petitioners are not interested persons and they have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. He also submitted that awarding of compensation is a matter between the State and land owners and the petitioners have nothing to do with it. He placed reliance on the 14 decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 14 SCC page 285 WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs INDRAPURI STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER to contend that the petitioners are not interested persons and therefore, they have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. He also submitted that the Secretary to PWD department, Government of Karnataka has filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in contempt proceedings stating that excess of 554 acres of land has been handed over and it is contrary to the frame work agreement. Since the matter is seized before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court cannot direct the respondents to pass the awards. He also submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not apply to the fact situation of the present case. Therefore, the writ petitions may be dismissed.
15
15. The learned counsel for the applicants in I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013 & 3/2013 contended that impleading applicants are necessary parties to the proceedings and therefore, they may be impleaded. It was also contended that an affidavit has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating that excess of land has been handed over and the lands of the applicants are not required for the project and Civil Appeals are pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the applicants may be impleaded as parties to the proceedings.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents-2 & 3 submitted that PWD is a necessary party to the proceedings being a nodal agency and therefore, it may be impleaded as party to the proceedings. 16
17. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
18. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(1) Whether I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013, 3/2013 & 4/2013 need to be allowed?
(2) Whether the respondents-3 & 4 can to be directed to pass the awards?
POINT NO. 1:
19. I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013 & 3/2013 have been filed by the applicants who are the land owners to 17 implead them as parties to the proceedings. I.A.No.4/2013 has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3 to implead PWD as party to the proceedings. The applicant in I.A.No.1/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.64/1 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta of Gottigere village. The applicant in I.A.No.2/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.44/1 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas of Madavara village. The applicant in I.A.No.3/2013 is the owner of Sy.No.34/3 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas of Doddathogur village. The lands of the applicants have been acquired for BMIC project. Possession has been handed over. The applicant in I.A.No.1/2013 has preferred Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.761/2013. However, there is no stay or any other interim order restraining not to pass any award. The land has been acquired and acquisition proceedings have been upheld and there is no stay restraining not to pass any award. Therefore, in our considered view, the presence of the 18 applicants is not required to consider the relief claimed in the writ petitions. Therefore, I.A.Nos.1/2013, 2/2013 & 3 /2013 are hereby rejected. Similarly, PWD is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Accordingly, I.A.No.4/2013 is hereby rejected.
POINT NO.2:
20. Insofar as the question as to whether the respondents-3 & 4 can to be directed to pass the awards is concerned, it is not in dispute that 344 acres of land mentioned in Annexure-A has been acquired for BMIC project. It is also not in dispute that possession of the land has been handed over to the petitioners. The acquisition proceedings have been concluded upto the Apex Court.19
21. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that Secretary, PWD department has filed an affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court stating that excess of land has been handed over. The contention regarding excess of land has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.NAGABHUSHANA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2011(3) SCC page 408. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"38. In that view of the matter, this Court makes it clear that the State Government should complete the project as early as possible and should not do anything, including releasing any land acquired under this project, as that may impede the completion of the project and would not be compatible with the larger public interest which the project is intended to serve."20
Similarly, in contempt proceedings No.144/2006 in Civil Appeal Nos.3492-3294/2005, the Hon'ble Supreme court has observed that no land shall be denotified by the State Government until further orders. Therefore, it is clear that the contention regarding excess of land has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Absolutely there is nothing on record to show as to which is that excess of land that has been handed over. It is stated, about 554 acres of land has been handed over in excess. The land involved in this case is about 344 acres. In the absence of any material to show with regard to excess of land handed over. It is difficult to accept the contention of the respondents and accordingly, it is rejected.
22. The Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to 21 maintain the writ petitions. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 14 SCC page 285 WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs INDRAPURI STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED & ANOTHER.
23. As against this, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners being the beneficiaries are interested persons and therefore, they can maintain the writ petitions.
24. In WEST BENGAL STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Vs INDRAPURI STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER (2010) 14 SC 285), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering Section 2(d) of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 has held that beneficiaries have 22 no locus standi to participate in the process of determination of compensation. However, in the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners namely HIMALAYAN TILES AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED V/S FRANCIS VICTOR COUTINHO reported in (1980) 3 SCC page 223, NEELANGANGABAI & ANOTHER vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS reported in (1990)3 SCC page 617, N KRISHNAMACHARI vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD & OTHERS reported in (1994)6 SCC page 74, NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED vs SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) reported in (1995)1 SCC page 221 and DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs BHOLA NATH SHARMA & OTHERS reported in (2011)2 SCC page 54, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the provisions of Land Acquisition Act has held that beneficiaries are interested persons and they have locus standi.
23
25. Section 2(11) of the KIADB Act provides that the expression 'land' and expression 'persons interested' have the same meaning assigned to them in Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
26. Section 3(1) of the Land Acquisition Act defines the expression 'person interested' as follows:
"3(1):- The expression "person interested" includes all person claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;"
Considering this provision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the person interested includes beneficiaries of acquisition also. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the beneficiaries are not 24 interested persons and they cannot maintain the writ petitions. The land has been acquired for BMIC project. The petitioners are the beneficiaries. They have to pay the compensation, acquisition expenses and interest for the delayed period. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. Accordingly, it is rejected.
27. The lands mentioned in Annexure-A i.e., about 344 acres of land has been acquired for BMIC project. Possession has been handed over. The acquisition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also stated that the roads have been formed, huge amount of about Rs.213 Crores has been deposited towards compensation. In the course of proceedings, we directed the respondents to furnish the details showing the progress made in making the 25 awards and payment of compensation. The respondents have furnished the following details:
Statement showing the progress made in making awards and payment of compensation.
Total Agreement
Awarded PAC
extent Comp /Consent Total Total
passed Notices PAC conven
of land ensa- U/S 29(2) extent extent
but issued to be ed but
include tion of KIAD of Govt. involved
amount to pass con- award
d in alread Act given /Kharab in court
not award vened to be
this y paid by the lands cases
deposited passed
case landlords
Acre- Acre- Acre- Acre- Acre- Acre- Acre- Acre- Acre-
Gunta Gunt Gunta Gunta Gunta Gunta Gunta Gunt Gunta
a a
344- 2- 28- 23- 103- 160-
20-14.95 11-05 21-10
3.02 15.90 17.25 20.63 32 3.04
Note: 1. For consent, notices have been issued on 16/09/2013 to an extent of 20 acres 14.95 guntas (SLAO-1)
2. For non consent, notices have been issued on 28/08/2013 to an extent 28 acres 17.25 guntas (SLAO-
2) fixing the date on 24/09/2013 adjourned to 08/10/2013
3. Letters have been addressed to DC, Ramanagara District on 25/11/2009, 20/01/2010, 20/02/2010, 21/02/2011, 13/04/2011, 15/07/2011, 26/06/2011 and 24/09/2013 to convene PAC meeting to an extent 103 acres 32 guntas (SLAO-2)
4. Payment has been made for 2 acres 15.90 guntas (1 acre 0.67 gunta from SLAO-1 and 1 acre 15.23 guntas from SLAO-2) From the above details, it is clear, that total extent of land involved in this case is 344 acres and 3.02 guntas. 26 Out of that, compensation has been paid in respect of 2 acres and 15.90 guntas. Consent award has been passed in respect of 20 acres and 14.95 guntas. In respect of 21 acres and 10 guntas of land award has been passed but, amount has not been deposited. Notices have been issued in respect of 28 acres and 17.25 guntas. An extent of 23 acres and 20.63 guntas is involved in the Court cases. In respect of 103 acres 32 guntas, Price Advisory Committee meeting has to be convened and in respect of 160 acres and 3.04 guntas, PAC has been convened but award has not been passed.
28. Therefore, It is clear, consent award has been passed in respect of 20 acres and 14.95 guntas of land and award has been passed in respect of 21 acres and 10 guntas of land and amount has not been deposited. In respect of the remaining land, no awards 27 have been passed even after several years and though challenge to the acquisition proceedings has come to an end. There is no valid reason for this. The respondents have not produced anything to show that they were restrained by Court orders from passing the awards. Therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to delay the passing of the awards. In the circumstances of the case, we consider it proper to direct the respondents-3 and 4 to pass the awards without further delay.
29. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the respondents-3 & 4 are directed to pass the awards in respect of the lands mentioned in Annexure-A except the lands in respect of which awards are already passed. The Respondents-3 & 4 shall complete the 28 process of passing the awards within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
I.A.No.5/2013 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *sp