Karnataka High Court
Mr G M Nethaji vs The Chairman on 27 January, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3613
WP No. 5005 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 5005 OF 2016 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR G M NETHAJI
SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1(a) MRS. VARALAKSHMI
W/O LATE G.M. NETAJI
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
1(b) MRS. G.N. THILAKAVATHY
D/O LATE G.M. NETAJI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
1(c) MRS. D. SUSHEELA
D/O LATE G.M. NETAJI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
1(d) MR. G.N. SUBRAMANYA N. RAJU
S/O LATE MR. G.M. NETHRAJI
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
by SUMA B N
Location: High
Court of 1(e) MR. N. HEMACHANDRA RAJU
Karnataka
S/O LATE MR. G.M. NETHRAJI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.831
RAMANUJA ROAD
MYSURU - 570 004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.R. SHIVAPRAKASH AND
SMT. A.D. SANGEETHA., ADVOCATE FOR P1(a) TO P1(e))
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3613
WP No. 5005 of 2016
AND:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
MUDA, MYSORE - 570 005
KARNATAKA STATE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
MYSORE - 570 024.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T P VIVEKANANDA FOR ADVOCATE R1;
SMT. GEETHADEVI M. PAPANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE REASONABLE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AS PER THE RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT 2013 [NEW
CENTRAL ACT 30/2013 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner are before this Court being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent-MUDA in not considering the representation dated 14.03.2012 produced at Annexure-F, representation dated 12.02.2014 produced at Annexure-H, -3- NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 representation dated 17.12.2014 produced at Annexure-J, representation dated 14.07.2015 produced at Annexure-K and representation dated 27.07.2015 produced at Annexure-L made by the petitioner and also for direction to the respondent-MUDA to pay the reasonable amount of compensation as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013').
2. Case of the petitioner is that, he is the owner of shop Nos.D-41, D-41/1, D-41/3 and D-41/4 in all measuring 51X23 Situated at Makkaji Chowk, Gandhi Square, Block No.53, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore, he having inherited the same from his mother Smt. C.M.Savithramma. That the petitioner was also the owner of another property bearing door No.1738 New No. D.94, measuring 16.50X59 Ft. situated at Makkaji Chowk, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore, he having inherited the same from his father Sri. Maniswamy Raju. That the then City Improvement Trust Board Mysore had proposed to acquire all the shops situated at Makkaji Chowk, for public purpose and in furtherance thereof had issued a preliminary notification dated 15.12.1965 under Section 16(1) of the then City of Mysore -4- NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 Improvement Act, 1903 published on 06.01.1966. Followed by the final notification dated 09.11.1971 issued under Section 18(1) and 18(2) of the then City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903. That the Authority had issued award notice to the predecessor of the petitioner under Section 11 on 17.04.1974 in L.A.C.No.29/72-B for Rs.12,388/- and L.A.C.No.33/72-73 for Rs.8,564/-. However, till date the petitioner has not received the compensation. That after the demise of his parents, the petitioner has obtained change of revenue records in respect of the aforesaid property in his name and had even let out the premises for tenants and he is paying the property tax. That the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition in W.P.Nos.22197/2005 and 11394/2006, seeking quash of acquisition proceedings, on the premise of same having lapsed in terms of the Section 19 of the City of Mysore Improvement Act, 1903 and under Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987. The said writ petitions were dismissed by this Court by order dated 25.07.2008. While dismissing the petition this Court had directed the respondent-MUDA to consider the representation of the petitioner, if given, to find out if there was a possibility of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 allotting 250 Sq.Ft of built up area or to accommodate the petitioner elsewhere.
3. Further, the petitioner had filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.Nos.1279 and 1280/2008, by a common judgment and order dated 15.06.2011, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Appeals against which the petitioner had carried the matter to the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.No.3339/2012, which was also dismissed. However, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the State Government or to the Mysore Municipal Corporation for re-determination of the market value, keeping in view of the peculiar facts of the case. That subsequent thereof, petitioner had made representation as per Annexure-F to Annexure-L which are not been considered by the respondent-Authorities. Hence, the present petition.
4. Smt. Sangeetha, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the aforesaid facts and grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the respondent-Authority having acquired the land and the built up area, which was belonging to the petitioner and though claim to have passed -6- NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 the award have not disbursed the compensation till date, even after coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as 'the Act, 2013'). As such the petitioner is entitled for determination of the compensation in terms of provisions of the Act, 2013. Hence, she submits that necessary directions be issued to the respondent-Authorities.
5. In response, Smt. Geethadevi M.Papanna, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 appearing through video conference referring to the statement of objections dated 23.01.2025 submits that admittedly the award was passed as far as back in the year 1974 and amount has been deposited in the year 1977. She refers to the order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1279 and 1280/2008 produced by the petitioner himself at Annexure-D to the petition, more particularly to the paragraph No.17 of the said order, wherein this Court while dismissing the said appeal had confirmed the acquisition having attained finality and had also taken note of the award having been passed and the same having been deposited. Thus, she submits that since these -7- NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 material aspect of the matter was agitated in the earlier round of litigation which has been turned down, expect reserving liberty to petitioner to make a representation, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to re-agitate the aspect claiming enhanced compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
6. Sri. T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 on the other hand submits that even according to the petitioner in his representation dated 14.03.2012 that was made by him, pursuant to the liberty reserved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 13.02.2012, he has merely sought for enhancement of area which was offered to the petitioner and for re-determination of the market value and for enhanced compensation by offering him a personal hearing. He submits that the petitioner is very well aware of the award proceedings and had indeed participated in the said proceedings. In that he refers to award notice produced along with a memo filed on behalf of respondent-MUDA dated 27.01.2025. He refers to unnumbered paragraph Nos.2 and 3 found at page Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the award respectively. Wherein there is a specific reference of the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 name of mother of the petitioner Smt. C.M. Savithramma and Sri. G.M. Nethaji who is the petitioner herein, regarding they having participated in the award proceedings. He also draws attention of this Court to the award notice produced at Page Nos.30 and 31 of the said memo, wherein as the overleaf of the said document, there appears to be the signature of the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of the award notice. Referring to the said documents, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-MUDA submits that the petitioner having exhausted all avenues has filed the present petition on the allegation of respondent-Authorities not considering the representation. He submits that the petitioner ought to have pursued the remedy as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, if he was aggrieved by the determination of rate of compensation and at this belated stage he cannot be heard to say that the award has neither been passed nor disbursed.
7. Heard and perused the records.
8. Fact that the property being claimed by the petitioner having been acquired by the respondent-Authorities is not in dispute. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner -9- NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 vehemently argued that the petitioner is neither aware of the award proceedings nor about the award having been passed, the very own averments of the petitioner made at paragraph No.6 of the writ petition belies the said contention. Further, even as pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Mysore City Municipal Corporation the contents of paragraph No.17 of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.1279 and 1280/2008 produced at Annexure-D, would indicate the award having been passed and acquisition having attained finality and compensation having been received by the land owners. The documents produced by the respondent-MUDA would also indicate the aforesaid aspect of the matter, more particularly both mother of the petitioner and the petitioner himself having participated in the award proceedings. Be that as it may. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P.No.3339/2012 on 13.02.2012, wherein in the appeal carried by the petitioner herein against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench of this Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the following Order:
'' However, in the peculiar facts of the case, we give liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate representation to the State Government or the Mysore Municipal Corporation.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 The representation, if any, made by the petitioners shall be decided by the Competent authority within three months. ''
9. Pursuant thereof, the petitioner seems to have made representations found at Annexure-F to Annexure-L admittedly the respondent-MUDA has not passed any orders on the said representations. Learned counsel for the respondent-MUDA hasten to add that the representations have not been addressed to the persons/Authority who are required to consider the same, namely Special Land Acquisition Officer of the respondent-MUDA. However, he fairly submits that without sticking to the technicality of these aspect the respondent- Chairman, MUDA who has been arrayed as respondent No.1, would issue necessary instructions to the SLAO, MUDA who is not arrayed as respondent, to look into the representation that is filed by the petitioner at Annexure-F to Annexure-L and would pass appropriate orders given sometime in this regard.
10. In view of the above, following:
ORDER
(i). Writ petition is disposed of.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3613
WP No. 5005 of 2016
(ii). Petitioner has already submitted
representations as per Annexure-F to
Annexure-L. Though, the said representations have not been addressed to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA, the Chairman, MUDA shall direct the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA to consider the representations referred to above.
(iii). The Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA shall afford personal hearing to the petitioners with a prior notice thereof and shall consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of award proceedings, subsequent orders passed by this Court and specific directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court as noted above and shall pass detailed order in accordance with law.
iv. Such exercise shall be undertaken and the order in this regard be communicated to the petitioner within an outer limit of three months
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:3613 WP No. 5005 of 2016 from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iv). Needless to mention, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA shall also provide an opportunity to the respondent- Mysore City Corporation who is the beneficiary of the acquisition before passing order as directed hereinabove.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1