Shri Devi Education Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2022

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Devi Education Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 17 February, 2022

Bench: H. T. Narendra Prasad

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

               W.P.No.9340 OF 2016(LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

Shri Devi Education Trust,
Represented by its Managing Trustee,
Mr. A Sadananda Shetty,
Having its registered Office at
Ballalbagh,
Mangalore-575003.                         ... Petitioner

(By Sri.Clifton D' Rozaria, Advocate (VC))

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka,
       Represented by its Chief Secretary,
       Vidhana Soudha,
       Bengaluru-560001.

2.     The Land Acquisition Officer,
       And the Assistant Commissioner ,
       Dakshnina Kannada District,
       Mangalore-570 001.

3.     Airport Authority of India,
       Represented by its Airport Director,
       Mangalore International Airport
       Kenjar Post & Village
       Mangalore-574142.                    ... Respondents
                              2



(By Smt. Kavitha H.C., HCGP for R1 & R2(PH):
 Sri. Joshua H Samuel, Advocate for R3. (VC))

       This writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to Declare the actuation
proceedings initiated vide preliminary notification under
Section 4(1) dated: 17.07.2006 as per Annexure-A and
final Notification under Section 6 vide dated: 31.1.2007 as
per Annexure-B have lapsed as far as the Sy.No.111/2
measuring 3.75 acres and Sy.No.114/2 measuring 2.04
acres, situated at Malavoor Village, Mangalore Taluk,
Dakshina Kannada and belonging to the petitioner is
concerned in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

       This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing
in 'B' group, this day, the Court, made the following:


                          ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'LA Act') dated 17.07.2006 vide Annexure-A and the final notification issued under Section 6(1) of the LA Act dated 31.01.2007 vide Annexure-B, on the ground that the acquisition has lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and 3 Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, '2013 Act').

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submitted that if the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are ready to pay the compensation to the petitioner in terms of the LA Act, he will not press for challenge to the acquisition.

3. The learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that since the petitioner's land has been acquired under the said notification, award is also passed by the authority as per Annexure-C and since the possession is already taken, petitioner's request for payment of compensation would be considered in accordance with law.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.111/2 measuring 3.75 acres and 114/2 measuring 2.04 acres situated at Malavoor Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. The same has been acquired under the LA Act by invoking Section 17 of the LA Act by issuing preliminary notification dated 24.10.2006 and the final notification dated 31.01.2007. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have taken possession of the property of the petitioner. Thereafter the award has been passed on 15.05.2007, vide Annexure-C. But the award amount has not been paid to the petitioner. As per Section 34 of the LA Act, the respondents have to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession, till the amount is paid. If the compensation amount has not been paid within a period of one year from the date of taking the possession, they have to pay interest @ 15% p.a. 5 6. In view of the above, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the compensation amount along with interest as per Section 34 of the LA Act to the petitioner in respect of the property which has been acquired pursuant to the notifications, stated above, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cm/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court