Karnataka High Court
Swamirao S/O Laxmanrao (Died) vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT GULBARGA
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.83160-164 of 2011 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Swamirao
S/o Laxmanrao (died)
By his LRs:
I Smt. Subadrabai
W/o Late Swamirao Patil
Age Major, Occ: Household
II Pramod, S/o Late Swamirao Patil
Age 56 years, Occ: Business
III Dattatrayarao, S/oLate Swamirao Patil
Age 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
IV Kanchana, D/o Suresh Deshpande
Age Major, Occ: Student
V Gururaj, S/o Late Swamirao Patil
Age 45 years, Occ: Business & Agriculture
VI Sabita, D/o Late Swamirao Patil
Age Major, Occ: Govt.Servant
2
VII Arunkumar, S/o Late Swamirao Patil
Age 37 years, Occ: Private Work
All R/o New Raghavendra Colony
Brahampur Gulbarga
Through their GPA Holder
Sri. Dattatrayarao, S/o Swamirao Patil
Age 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o New Raghavendra Colony
Brahmapura, Gulbarga.
... Petitioners
(By Smt Sharanamma S.B., Advocate)
AND:
1 The State of Karnataka
Through the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur
2 The Chief Manager, Land Acquisition,
Upper Krishna Project
Bagalkot
3 The Special Land Acquisition Officer
UKP, Indi, Dist: Bijapur
...Respondents
(By Sri Shivakumar Tengli, AGA)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari, the order in File No.LAQ:5:CR:179:96-97 dated
19.02.1997 passed by the second respondent under Annexure-L
and also order dated 31.08.2009 passed by the third
respondent vide Annexure-M.
3
These Writ Petitions coming on for orders this day, Court
made the following:
ORDER
These petitioners have approached this Court for a writ of certiorari for quashing Annexure-L and M issued by the 5th respondents, informing the petitioners that their lands were not acquired for formation of road and they are not entitled for any compensation and the entire acquisition proceedings are a farce.
2. One Swamirao claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy.No.33 measuring 11 acres 36 guntas of Sirasgi Village, Taluk Sindgi, District Bijapur. He is dead. It is his legal heirs who have filed these writ petitions in the name of a dead person. Their case is that the third respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, issued a notification dated 25.09.1993 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition act, for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', proposing to acquire the land measuring 18 guntas and 10 4 guntas out of the land in Sy.No.33 for the formation of road (Aycat Road). A copy of Section 4(1) notification is produced as Annexure-A and B. Final notification came to be issued on 08.02.1995 and 13.06.1995 as per Annexure-C and D. Award came to be passed on 13.11.1996 and 18.11.1996 awarding a sum of Rs.3,802-00 and Rs.2,400-50ps as compensation for acquiring the land. Annexure-E and F are the awards. Swamirao died on 15.11.1995. During the life time of Swamirao, he had not informed his family members about the acquisition proceedings as they were all residing at different places. Therefore, till 2009 they were not aware of the acquisition proceedings. The elder members of the family informed them that the land has been acquired by the respondents and award is also passed. On receipt of the said information, the petitioners filed an application on 17.08.2009 before the third respondent to release the award amount. Annexure-H is the copy of the said application. On 06.12.2010 the third respondent issued an endorsement stating that Rs.3,802-00 and Rs.2400.50ps is sanctioned towards 5 acquisition of petitioners land. Annexure-J and K are the said letters. The third respondent wrote another letter dated 31.08.2009 informing them that the second respondent has already passed an order holding that as the roads are being formed on old roads, the question of payment of compensation to the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, they were not justified in issuing the impugned Annexures.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners assailing the impugned Annexures contended that when once the acquisition proceedings are initiated, award is passed, it is too late in the day for the respondent to contend that no land was acquired for the formation of the road. Therefore she submits that the impugned Annexures are to be quashed and a direction is to be issued to pay the compensation amount.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submits that no part of the petitioners' land is acquired. The entire acquisition proceedings is a farce and on coming to know 6 of the same, the authorities has taken steps to protect the public interest by withholding the amount.
5. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the respondents were justified in with-holding the payment of compensation amount after initiating acquisition proceedings and passing of the award?"
6. Before considering the said issue involved in this case, it is distressing to note that in this part of Karnataka, this Court has come across cases where especially after the constitution of the Circuit Benches, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the judicial process has been grossly abused. Writ petitions are filed complaining non-payment of compensation amount after acquiring the land. The relief sought is to issue a direction to the Government to initiate 7 acquisition proceedings and then pay compensation. Similarly, it is surprising that the Government officials are party and privy to this fraud. We find that acquisition proceedings are initiated to acquire lands for the formation of a roads and tanks, which are formed 100 years back during the Nizam period. The excuse is, the High Court has issued a direction to initiate acquisition proceedings and therefore acquisition proceedings are initiated. Awards are passed, huge amounts with interest are awarded as compensation. Probably, after noticing some of these peculiar aspects in this part of Karnataka, when orders have been passed by this Court to the District authorities to be careful and to look into the matter, it is heartening to note that they have applied their mind and examined these cases and on examination when they found that these acquisition proceedings are all farce, no land is acquired, roads are formed long back or in case where the cart track has been upgraded into a pucca road and it is tarred, they have issued instructions to the authorities to with-hold payment, if award is passed. If acquisition proceedings are initiated, not to proceed with the 8 acquisition. Against such endorsement, spate of writ petitions are filed challenging these endorsement and orders. Most of the work of the Circuit Bench is spent in only dealing with these type of frivolous and manipulative and fraudulent litigation.
7. Now in the instant case, the case specifically pleaded is that the petitioners' land have been acquired for the formation of a road. In the entire petition there is no averment regarding how the petitioners became the owners of the property mentioned, what is the extent of property they own, and what are the boundaries of their property. All that has been said is, there is a notification, there is an award and that should be sufficient to claim compensation.
8. To demonstrate this falsity, the Government has produced before the Court the village map of the year 1979. The said village map shows the existence of a pathway where, now a pucca road is formed in the year 1998. In the preliminary notification at Annexure-A, the properties, which 9 are notified for acquisition are mentioned, namely Sy.Nos.33, 34/3, 38, 39, and 42/1. The boundaries of the said properties are also given. To the South of Sy.No.33 lies the pathway, whereas in the notification it is shown as Sy.No.42. Sy.No.34/3 is also situated towards North of the said pathway. In the boundary to the South, it is shown as Sy.No.39. Similarly, Sy.No.38 is also towards the North of the said pathway. Whereas, in the notification, to the South, boundary is shown as Sy.No.39 and there is no mention about the pathway. In so far as Sy.No.39 is concerned, the pathway lies to the South, whereas, what is mentioned is Sy.No.40. Similarly in Sy.No.42/1, the pathway lies to the North, what is shown to the North is Sy.No.33. Therefore, the boundaries mentioned in the notification is ex-facie incorrect. There is no mention about this pathway. If this pathway was not there, then there is no way in which one can enter Sy.No.33. It is completely land locked. Therefore, there is substance in what the respondents are saying, i.e., in 1998 what they did was they upgraded this pathway into a road and tarred it. In the process, they have not 10 acquired any land of any of these land owners. Therefore question of payment of compensation would not arise. These notifications issued, award passed, are all obviously in collusion with the officials. Unfortunately, no action has been taken against these officials for letting down the interest of the public and encouraging dishonesty among the illiterate and innocent farmers. Therefore, it is time that these persons have to be dealt with firmly.
9. In the light of what is stated above, these impugned annexures issued are valid and legal and they are not liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following order:
(1) Writ petitions are dismissed.
(2) The Chief Manager, Land Acquisition, Upper Krishna
Project, Bagalkot/Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur is
directed to identify the officials who are responsible for issue of preliminary notification, final notification and for passing of the award and take appropriate action against 11 them in accordance with law for colluding with the land owners.
(3) He/They shall also order for investigation to identify such similar fraudulent acquisitions where already money is paid and take appropriate action against concerned officials.
(4) Initiate a full fledged enquiry to enquire into all such irregularities in his/their district and take prompt action, so that no money is paid under such fraudulent award. (5) After identifying the persons who are responsible for all these fraudulent acts, proceedings have to be initiated against all the officials, not only departmental but also see that they are prosecuted in a Criminal Court. (6) The Chief Manager, Land Acquisition, Upper Krishna Project, Bagalkot/Deputy Commissioner, shall submit a 12 report to this Court on the action taken in this regard within a period of three months, with a copy to:
(a) Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka
(b) The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka.
(c) Karnataka Lokayukta (7) The High Court Registry shall send a copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioners of Raichur, Yadgir, Kopal, Gulbarga and Bidar, for taking appropriate action in similar cases, as in those districts also similar instances exist.
(8) The High Court Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the following:
(a) Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka
(b) The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka.13
(c) Karnataka Lokayukta Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ksp/-