Karnataka High Court
Sri B L Sridhar vs Sri B R Pathi on 30 May, 2013
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 KARNATAKA 163, (2013) 4 KCCR 2696
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, L.Narayana Swamy
1
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT APPEAL NOS.114-117/2011(LA-RES)
BETWEEN
1 SRI B L SRIDHAR
S/O B K LAKSHMAIAH
AGED MAJOR, R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
HOUSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
2 SRI B L BABU
S/O B K LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED MAJOR
R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
HOUSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
3 SRI B L SOMASHEKAR
S/O B K LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED MAJOR
R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
HOUSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
4 SRI B L RAJSHEKAR
S/O B K LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED MAJOR
R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
2
BEGUR HOBLI,
HOUSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
... APPELLANTS
(By Sri : REUBEN JACOB, ADV.FOR APPELLANTS)
AND :
1 SRI B R PATHI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O LATE SMT R RAMARATHNAMMA
& SRI B S RAJAGOPALA SHETTY,
R/AT NO. 4, 7TH CROSS,
KATRIGUPPE,
BANGALORE- 85
2 THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS,
FOR HIGHWAY NO.7, BANGALORE-
HOSUR ROAD, K.R. CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-02
3 SRI B L SHANTHANA KRISHNA
S/O B K LAKSHMAIAH
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT BOMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
4 BANGALORE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK
CHAMARJPET,
BANGALORE- 18
REP. BY ITS MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : P N NANJAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 TO R4 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH )
3
THESE WRIT APPEALS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION
NO.9819/2008(GM) DATED 06/10/2010.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, MANJUNATH J, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.NO.9819/08 dt.6th October, 2010, is called in question in these appeals.
2. The facts leading to these appeals are as hereunder:
Five guntas of land in Sy.No.3 of Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk was notified and acquired by the National Highway authorities for widening the National Highway No.7 between Hosur and Bangalore. Final notification and award was passed in respect of the properties acquired under the aforesaid notification. A building was also in existence on the land in question. In all a sum of Rs.79,59,961/- was awarded. The appellants 4 claimed the entire compensation as if they are the owners of the property.
3. The Writ Petitioner B.R.Pathi, who is respondent No.1 in this appeal also claimed right in the aforesaid land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer exercising the powers u/s 3-H(3) of the National Highway Act 1956, ordered to disburse the entire compensation awarded to the appellants.
4. Aggrieved by the action of the Land Acquisition Officer in not referring the matter for Civil Court for adjudicating the dispute, 1st respondent filed the Writ Petition. The Learned Single Judge after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties came to the conclusion that the Land Acquisition Officer had no power to disburse the entire amount to the appellants herein invoking the provisions of Section 3-H(3) of the National Highways Act. Accordingly, he allowed the Writ Petition directing the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter under sub-section (4) of Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, to the City Civil Court for 5 determining the dispute. While allowing the appeal, a direction is also issued by the Learned Single Judge to redeposit the amount which was drawn by the appellants. Therefore, the present appeal is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order.
5. The only point to be considered in this appeal is considering the actual dispute between the parties, whether Sub-section (3) of Section 3-H of the National Highways Act or Sub-section (4) of Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, is applicable in order to find out whether the order of the Learned Single Judge suffers from any error.
6. Section 3-H of the National Highways Act reads as hereunder:
"3H. Deposit and payment of amount.- (1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.6
(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.
(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.
(5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent, per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.7
(6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-section (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit. "
7. It is not in dispute that the Writ Petitioner - B.R.Pathi, contends that he is having an interest in a portion of the land acquired and that he is entitled for compensation. On the contrary the appellants herein contends that they are entitled for the entire compensation as they are the owners of the property. Therefore, the dispute is in regard to the title and apportionment of the compensation based on the rights of respective parties. The Special Land Acquisition Officer having considered the actual dispute between the parties, has allowed the claim of the appellants as if there is no actual dispute in regard to the title and the actual dispute is only in regard to 8 the percentage of compensation payable to each of them.
8. We could have appreciated the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants that Special Land Acquisition Officer was justified in invoking Sub- section (3) of Section 3-H of the Act, provided there was no dispute between the appellants and the respondent in regard to the extent of land held by each of them. If there is no dispute in regard to the extent of land held by each of them, based on their claim, amount could have disbursed by invoking Sub- section (3) of Section 3-H. On the contrary, the actual dispute in question is whether the appellants are the owners of the entire extent of 5 guntas and whether the Writ Petitioner is also having a share out of 5 guntas. It is nothing but a title dispute. Such disputes cannot be adjudicated under Sub-section (3) of Section 3-H and it falls within the provision of Sub- section (4).
9
9. Therefore, we are of the opinion the Learned Single Judge is justified in granting relief to the Writ Petition in directing the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter under Sub-section (4) of Section 3-H of the Act by directing the appellants to redeposit the amount which has been withdrawn by them.
10. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak