Karnataka High Court
D R Kannan C/O M A Nagaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 October, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.2165 OF 2010 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
D.R.Kannan,
C/o. M.A.Nagaraju,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at : Maralabagilu,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Padmanabha Mahale, Senior Counsel for Shri.
Manikappa Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By its Chief Secretary,
Department of Industry and Commerce.
2. Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore Rural District,
Podium Block,
Visveshwaraiah Tower,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore.
2
3. Tahsildar, Devanahalli,
Bangalore.
4. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
No.14/3, Rashtrothana,
Presently at Paishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri.H.T. Narendra Prasad, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
Shri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for Respondent No.4)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to call for the records and
declare that the land of the petitioner is not acquired and is not
necessary for acquisition as per Annexure-D dated 20.03.2006;
and also to direct the second and third respondents to issue
sketch copy after demarcation of the petitioner's land in
question and in alternative; and direct the respondents to pay
the compensation of the land if acquired, along with statutory
benefits by holding enquiry regarding market value of the land
as per Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Hearing this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner's land measuring 3 acres which is part of Sy.No.28 of Devanahalli 3 Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Doddasane Village, which totally measured about 237 acres and 30 guntas in all, was proposed to be acquired for the Bangalore International Airport. The land was gomal land, out of which 3 acres was previously granted to one Srinivasachari in the year 1968 who had sold it to one Chikkannayappa who in turn had sold it to the petitioner as on 17.10.1969. The petitioner, however, did not have the katha transferred in his name till the year 2001. But, it is his claim that he was cultivating the land and that the mutation entry was made in his favour as on 23.11.2001 and that there are records from the year 1997-98 to 2001-2002 indicating that the petitioner was indeed cultivating the land. The land having been acquired, the petitioner was denied the compensation amount, which led to the petitioner filing a writ petition in W.P.No.18231/2002 before this Court. The said petition was decided along with several other petitions. By an order dated 26.08.2003, a direction was issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to hold an enquiry under Section 11 of the Land 4 Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LA Act' for brevity) and to pass an award setting out the true and correct extent of the land in question. Pursuant to the direction, the Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB had passed an order dated 20.03.2006 in case No. LAQ.76/1996-97 and found that the land claimed by the petitioner did not fall within the lands acquired for the Bangalore International Airport and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation. However, the petitioner has produced an endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk Annexure-"C", whereunder it is endorsed that the land belonging to the petitioner was indeed acquired for the purposes of the Bangalore International Airport. At the same time, the petitioner himself has produced an RTC of the year 2008-09 indicating the petitioner as being the cultivator of the land.
2. Notwithstanding the inconsistency, the learned Senior Advocate Shri Padmanabha Mahale, appearing for the counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the enquiry held, though 5 the boundary indicated that the petitioner's land did tally on two sides, there was some doubt as to the boundary of the property on two other sides and it is in the face of which it was held that the petitioner's land was not subject matter of acquisition. However, he would point out that a large extent of land has been acquired for the purposes of the Bangalore International Airport, and on such acquisition, the entire land having been developed, the land of the petitioner is no longer capable of identification without a survey being conducted and the original village map being super-imposed over such survey and by adopting such other methods which would demonstrate that the petitioner's land is indeed the subject matter of acquisition. Such an exercise has not been carried out and it is on the vague inspection that an order has been passed negating the petitioner's claim. Therefore, he would submit that a joint survey be conducted along with the respondent - KIADB in order to identify the petitioner's land with certainty and if it has been acquired, the petitioner is entitled to compensation, which 6 cannot be denied to him. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that the entire exercise can be at the cost of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petition being filed several years after the petitioner's claim was negated, is itself a ground for dismissing the petition. Further, the petitioner's nebulous claim is evident from the inconsistent documents that are produced along with the petition itself and it is the firm case of the KIADB that the petitioner's land has not been acquired and therefore, the question of exploring whether the petitioner's land was indeed acquired is not relevant and would submit that the petition be dismissed.
4. In the light of the above contentions on the outside chance that the petitioner's land has been acquired and on the negation of the same by the KIADB, grave injustice would be caused to the petitioner if he is not paid compensation. 7 Therefore, to ascertain whether the land was indeed acquired in which event the petitioner would be entitled to claim compensation, there is no prejudice caused to the KIADB if a joint survey is conducted to ascertain whether the petitioner's land has been acquired, at the cost of the petitioner even at this late point of time and if indeed it has been acquired as may be found at the survey, the KIADB shall be obliged to take such steps to pay compensation.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The ADLR, Bangalore Rural District shall conduct a survey to identify the extent that was held by the petitioner and which he claims to be part of the lands acquired for the purposes of the Bangalore International Airport and ascertain whether indeed it was so acquired and the ADLR shall issue notices to the Tahsildar, the KIADB as well as the petitioner, before conducting the survey and shall submit his report, to the KIADB, with a copy to the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner could approach the KIADB to seek compensation if he is so entitled. In view 8 of the lapse of time, the exercise is to be expedited. Therefore, a copy of this order shall be furnished to the Government Pleader who in turn shall inform the ADLR, Bangalore Rural District to take such further steps as may be necessary and he shall complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such communication, if not earlier. The petition stands allowed in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS