Karnataka High Court
P Muttu S/O P Ponnaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492
WP No. 85557 of 2013
C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
®
WRIT PETITION NO. 85557 OF 2013 (LA-KIADB)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 112340 OF 2014 (LA-KIADB)
IN W.P. NO.85557 OF 2013:
BETWEEN:
DURGAPPA S/O DURGAPPA
CHANNADASAR @ MECHANNAVAR,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. GURUNATH NAGAR,HALE HUBLI-24,
TQ. HUBLI,DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
KIRAN
KUMAR R
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location:
HIGH R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
COURT OF DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES,
KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,33/A,
LAKMANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492
WP No. 85557 of 2013
C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KALSOORMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. VEERESH BUDHIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO NO.3 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DTD: 29.07.2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND
DIRECTION MAY BE ISSUED TO PAY COMPENSATION OF
RS.5,91,20,000/- TO THE PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.112340 OF 2014:
BETWEEN:
1. P. MUTTU S/O P. PONNASWAMY,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHANTI COLONY, T.B. DAM,
AMARAVATI, HOSPET,
DIST. BELLARY.
2. SMT. O. JAYSLAXMI W/O P. MUTTU,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHANTI COLONY, T.B. DAM,
AMARAVATI, HOSPET,
DIST. BELLARY.
3. SHAIKH MOHAMMED S/O SHAIKH HUSSAIN SAB,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
T.B. DAM, MAIN ROAD, AMARAVATI,
HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492
WP No. 85557 of 2013
C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
M.S. BUILDING,
VIDHANASOUDHA,
BANGALURU.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY.
3. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
ATTACHED TO KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KALSOORMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. VEERESH BUDHIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND NO.3 TO REFER THE APPLICATION OF
THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-P DTD: 23.06.2011 AND
ANNEXURE-Q DTD: 27.09.2011 FOR SEEKING HIGHER
COMPENSATION TO THE COMPETENT CIVIL COURT IN TERMS
OF SECTION.18 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. To facilitate a clearer understanding of this judgment, this judgment has been indexed as follows.
Sl. Particulars Page No. A. Facts: 04 (i) Pertaining to Dharwad Lands 04 (ii) Pertaining to Ballari Lands 17 -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 B. Contentions Advanced 23 C. Issues 24 D. Analysis of relevant legal provisions 25 E. Application of law to the present facts 40 F. Conclusion 50 G. Directions 52 A. FACTS:
2. For the sake of convenience, the lands involved in these writ petitions are referred to as "Dharwad lands"
and the "Ballari lands".
(i) PERTAINING TO DHARWAD LANDS:
3. On 19.08.2006, a Notification under Section 28(1)of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short "the Act") was published giving notice of the State Government's intention to acquire about 510 acres of land for the establishment of IT / BT Park. In this Notification, Block No.63 measuring 6 acres 36 guntas of -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 the petitioner was also included.
4. On 06.10.2006, a declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act was also issued by the Government. By virtue of the publication of the declaration in the Gazette under Section 28(4) of the Act, as provided under Section 28(5) of the Act, the land stood vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances.
5. On 13.11.2007, the petitioner was served with a notice, in which it was stated that a meeting was to be convened on 26.11.2007 for the purposes of determination of the amount of compensation as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the Act, and that the petitioner was required to attend the same and render his opinion.
6. On 26.11.2007, the meeting so conducted was chaired by the Deputy Commissioner, who was accompanied by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Joint Director, another Special Land Acquisition Officer, and Development Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Area -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 Development Board ("KIADB"), apart from the Senior Sub-Registrar as an invitee and 42 land owners.
7. In this meeting, the land owners were informed that a sum of Rs.05,21,352/- could be fixed as the price to be paid for the lands that were sought to be acquired.
8. The petitioner was present and stated that the market value of the property was Rs.20,00,000/- and suggested the price to be fixed at said Rs.20,00,000/-. The relevant record of the proceedings, which are produced as Annexure-B containing the statement of the petitioner, reads as follows:
"²æÃ. zÀÄUÀð¥Áà zÀÄUÀð¥Áà ZÀ£ÀßzÁ¸ÀgÀ, ¸Á: vÁjúÁ¼À EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár ¸ÀzÀgÀ vÁjúÁ¼À UÁæªÀÄzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ºÁUÀÆ vÉÆÃlUÁjPÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ SÁ¸ÀV ¨sÀÆ ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥ÀPÀgÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ FV£À ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è£À ¨É6ÉAiÀÄAvÉ gÀÆ. 20.00 ®PÀë ¤zsÀðj¸À®Ä ¸À¨sÉUÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ."-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
9. It has also been recorded in the proceedings as follows:
"EzÀ®èzÉà FUÁUÀ6Éà £ÁªÀÅ w½¹zÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ 6ÉPÁÌZÁgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ½UÉ §ºÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ ªÀåvÁå¸À«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ.25.30 ®PÀë UÀ½UÉ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀªÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀzÀÄ J®ègÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀPÉÌ §A¢zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸À®Ä G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀt C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è F ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÉÆÃAzÀ DVgÀĪÀ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ 2004-05 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è UÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è DzÀ d«Ää£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ Cwà ºÉZÀÄÑ CAzÀgÉ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉgÀÆ. 5,50,000-00 EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹, EzÀPÉÌ ±Á¸À£À§zÀÞ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr CzÀQÌAvÀ ºÉaÑ£À ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÀªÀÄUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀzÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÉà jÃw ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ MvÁ۬ĹzÀgÀÄ."
10. This would indicate that the farmers had not agreed for a sum of Rs.05,50,000/- and were demanding Rupees 25 to 30 lakhs. The proceedings also record the following:
"gÉÊvÀgÀ ¨ÉÃrPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ UÀȺÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀĪÀgÄÀ ¤ÃrzÀ ¸À£ï 2006-07£Éà ¸Á°£À zÀgÀ gÀÆ.6,90,000-00 ºÁUÀÆ 2004-05 £Éà -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 ¸Á°£À°è DzÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀªÁV ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ PÉÊUÁjPÉUÉ CªÀ±Àå«zÀÄÝ, ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ wÃgÀ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, ºÉaÑ£À ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ UÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀnÖ£À UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ¸À£ï 2004-05£Éà ¸Á°£À°è DzÀ d«Ää£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ Cwà ºÉZÀÄÑ CAzÀgÉ gÀÆ,5,50,000-00 ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ EzÀPÉÌ ±ÉÃ.30 £ÀµÀÖ ¨sÀwð, ±ÉÃ.12 ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯É ºÁUÀÆ ±ÉÃ.20 ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¸ÉÃjzÀgÉ CzÀgÀ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄÄ gÀÆ.8,91,000-00 DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À ºÀvÀÄÛ ¸Á«gÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢¹zÁUÀ gÀÆ.9,00,000-00 ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ ¨É¯É ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤zsÀðj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ gÀÆ.9,00,000-00 EzÀÄ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ d«Ä¤£À ¨É¯É DVzÀÄÝ, EvÀgÀ ªÀiË®åUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ ªÀiË®åªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ."
11. Thus, the KIADB officials were of the view that the highest sale consideration in respect of the neighbouring lands was Rs.05,50,000/- and to this - 30% solatium, a further 12% additional market value and, lastly, 20% additional compensation (a sum of Rs.8,91,000/-) would be the ideal sum, and the figure can be rounded-off to Rs.09,00,000/- per acre, which could be paid as compensation.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
12. Ultimately, it was recorded in the meeting as follows:
"PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÁjúÁ¼À ºÁUÀÆ UÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹zÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀæwJPÀgÉUÉgÀÆ. 9,00,000- 00 CAvÁ ¨sÀÆ ¨É6É ¤zsÀðj¹ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À®àlÖ ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀÅ ¸ÀgÁ¸Àj ¨É6ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥ÀnÖVAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ EgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ EzÀPÉÌ PÉ.L.J.r.©. ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ CªÀ±Àå«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÁ ªÀiÁ£Àå CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è CAwªÀĪÁV WÉÆö¹zÀgÀÄ."
13. The proceedings of this meeting thus indicates that the farmers were demanding Rupees 25 to 30 lakhs and the Price Determination Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, ultimately, declared that a sum of Rs.09,00,000/- was optimal, for which approval was however necessary from the KIADB.
14. Notwithstanding this determination of Rs.09,00,000/- per acre, on 16.06.2008 i.e., about seven months after the meeting, the petitioner was served with a notice stating that the KIADB had fixed a sum of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 Rs.13,36,000/- per acre for the purpose of compensation, as contemplated under Section29(2) of the Act.
15. Thus, the Board increased its initial determination of Rs.09,00,000/- per acre to Rs.13,36,000/- per acre after 7 months. The reason for this increase was however not forthcoming in the notice. Nonetheless, in the objection to the writ petition, it is stated as follows:
"3. It is submitted that, the compensation amount to the acquired land has been fixed at Rs.9,00,000/- per acre under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act under the presence of 2nd respondent as per Annexure-B of the petition. The acquired land owners are demanded more compensation amount to enter agreement under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act, therefore the Head Office of the 3rd Respondent finally decided to give compensation at Rs.13,36,000/- per acre. The notice was issued accordingly to the petitioner to receive the compensation under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act on 16-06-2008 as per Annexure-E of the petition."
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
16. It would therefore appear from the stand of the KIADB that since the land owners had demanded more than Rs.09,00,000/- per acre as compensation to enter into an agreement under Section 19 of the Act, the Head office of the Board had decided to give a compensation of Rs.13,36,000/- per acre.
17. It appears that on the very same day i.e., on 16.06.2008, possession of the petitioner's land was also taken over by the KIADB.
18. The petitioner, thereafter, addressed a letter dated 29.07.2008stating as follows:
"PÁgÀt, vÁªÀÅ ¥Àæw UÀÄAoÉUÉ 1 ®PÀë 20,000 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¨É¯É ¤UÀ¢UÉƽ¹ MlÄÖ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 3,13,20,000-00 £À£ÀUÉ vÁªÀÅ d«Ää£À ¨É¯É ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß M¦àUÉ EzÉ. KPÉAzÀgÉ FV£À ¸ÀzÀåzÀ ªÀiÁPÉðmï ¨É¯É »ÃUÉAiÉÄà EzÉ. ¸ÉÌ÷éÃgï¥sÀÆmï ¯ÉPÀÌzÀ°è ¨É¯É ¤zsÀðj¹ ¥Àæw UÀÄAoÉUÉ 1 ®PÀë 20,000 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¨É¯É ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹ £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÉ £À£Àß M¦àUÉ EzÉ. C®èzÉ F d«Ää£À°è ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ VqÀ, ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ 1 PÉÆÃn 50 ®PÀëPÀÆÌ ºÉaÑUÉ ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ VqÀªÀÄgÀUÀ½ªÉ. F ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £À£Àß M¦àUÉ EzÉ.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EzÉ d«Ää£À°è C£ÉÃPÀ ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ PÀlÖqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉgÉ, gÀ¸ÉÛ EªÉ EªÀÅUÀ¼À ¨É¯É MAzÀÄ PÉÆÃn 28 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£Éß®è ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä 5 PÉÆÃn 91 ®PÀë 20 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄAiÀÄÄvÀªÁzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀt ¤ÃrzÀgÉ £À£Àß M¦àUÉ EzÉ, E®è¢zÀÝgÉ PÀ®A 29(2)gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ M¥ÀàAzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ EzÉ. F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä EzÀPÉÌ £À£Àß M¦àUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤Ãr®è.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀÄ, ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ J®è «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ £ÁåAiÀÄAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À MlÄÖ 5 PÉÆÃn 91 ®PÀë 20 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¤Ãr £À£Àß d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉƼÀî°PÉÌ £À£Àß M¦àUÉ EzÉ. ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÀt gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä 5 PÉÆÃn 91 ®PÀë 20 ¸Á«gÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¢zÀÝgÉ £À£Àß M¦àUÉ E®èªÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä §AiÀĸÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
19. It is thus clear that in response to the notice dated 16.06.2008, the petitioner categorically stated that a sum of Rs.13,36,000/- was unacceptable to him and he demanded a total sum of Rs.05,91,20,000/-as compensation for the acquired lands and he also stated that only if the said sum was given, he was prepared to act in accordance with Section 29(2) of the Act.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
20. The record that is produced indicates that on 06.05.2009, an affidavit of the petitioner was given to the officials of the Board, in which he stated that there were no litigations in respect of the lands before any Court and he had not taken any compensation for his lands from any other authorities.
21. It may be pertinent to state here that the original records that are produced before the Court relating to the Dharwad lands do not indicate that there was any communication or correspondence between the petitioner and the Board or its officials from July, 2008 to May, 2009 regarding the determination of the sum of Rs.13.36 lakhs per acre, which was ultimately offered by the Board; or regarding any offer or counter offer regarding the compensation payable for the lands.
22. In other words, there is nothing in the file between 16.06.2008 (the date on which the offer for payment of Rs.13.36 lakhs per acre was made) and
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 06.05.2009 (the day on which the above-mentioned affidavit was filed), which indicates that there were any kind of deliberations regarding the compensation that was to be paid for the acquired lands.
23. The file also contains a letter dated 14.05.2009, in which the petitioner has stated that he was agreeable for the offer of Rs.13,36,000/-made to him by the letter dated 16.06.2008, and that he was willing to accept a sum of Rs.87,17,400/- for the land, Rs.82,32,585/- for the structures and Rs.84,000/- for the trees, and that the same may be paid to him immediately.
24. It may be pertinent to note here that the notice of the Board to the effect that it was willing to pay Rs.13,36,000/- was made on 16.06.2008, and for nearly a year thereafter (till 06.05.2009), nothing transpired between the petitioner and the respondent in the matter of compensation, but, nevertheless, a letter has been submitted by the petitioner on 14.05.2009, whereby the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 petitioner accepted a sum of Rs.13,36,000/- per acre, apart from Rs.82,32,585/- towards the cost of the building.
25. Thereafter, on 10.06.2009, the petitioner has executed an agreement and also an indemnity bond in favour of the KIADB and also received the compensation amount of Rs.83,16,600/- (after deduction of tax on 10.06.2009, being the value of the land).
26. The petitioner has also submitted a protest letter, dated 23.11.2009 (Annexure-H) stating that he had not received the compensation for the structures and for the trees, and if the amount was not paid, he would undertake a fast unto death.
27. As per the statement of objections, the petitioner was paid a further sum of Rs.80,60,988/- (after deducting tax from the total compensation of Rs.83,16,600/- in respect of the structures and malki on 23.03.2010).
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
28. Thus, in respect of the land for which possession was taken in June, 2008, the petitioner was ultimately paid compensation at the rate offered by the Board, only on 10.06.2009 and for the structures on 23.03.2010.
29. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the KIADB to consider his representation, dated 29.07.2008, whereby he had sought payment of compensation of Rs.5,91,20,000/-, and alternatively, a direction is sought to be issued to the 1strespondent to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to determine the compensation in terms of the representation dated 29.07.2008, and lastly, a prayer is made to declare that the agreements and indemnity bond executed by the petitioner are not agreements in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act and that the same are void and unenforceable against the petitioner.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
(ii) PERTAINING TO BALLARI LANDS:
30. On 07.10.2009, the State Government issued a Notification under Section 28(1) stating its intention to acquire 42 acres 77 guntas of land for the purposes of establishing a Truck Terminal. The lands of the petitioners were also included in said Notification.
31. On 27.05.2010 a declaration under Section 28(4) of the Act was published in the Gazette by the State Government and by virtue of said publication, the lands stood vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances.
32. It is stated that writ petitions were filed by the petitioner challenging the acquisition along with others in W.P. No.65554-58/2010, and by oversight, the petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed as withdrawn, though only two of the petitioners had sought withdrawal. It is stated that the petitioners had preferred an
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 application seeking recall of said order and the application was allowed, indicating that only WP 65557-58/2010 were dismissed as being withdrawn, and the writ petitions of the petitioners were restored.
33. On 13.08.2010, the petitioners were served with a notice stating that a meeting was to be convened, headed by the Deputy Commissioner (Ballari), Special Land Acquisition Officer (Dharwad), Joint Director (District Industries Department), Development Officer (KIADB) and the Managing Director of the D.Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal were present along with the landowners to determine the value of the lands by the Land Value Determination Advisory Committee, and the petitioners were required to appear and render their opinion.
34. On 29.09.2010, the meeting of the Committee was held and in the same, one of the petitioners i.e., the first petitioner (who is the husband of the second petitioner) stated that in respect of a neighbouring lands, an extent of
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 37 guntas of non-agricultural land had been sold for Rupees One Crore and he also produced the sale deed of that particular land to state that the value of their land should also be fixed on the same terms.
35. The petitioners also requested that the acquisition proceedings be dropped. It was also requested by the petitioners that instead of compensation, they should be given the same extent of developed lands since the petitioners were growing sugarcane crop and were earning about Rupees Twenty Lakhs every year. It was also stated that they were entitled to a sum of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per sq. ft., failing which the Truck Terminal should be established elsewhere.
36. The records of the proceedings indicate the following were the deliberations between the Deputy Commissioner and the land owners:
"f6Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, »jAiÀÄ G¥À£ÉÆAzÀt C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ CªÀÄgÁªÀw UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è ©£ï ±ÉÃwÌ d«Ää£À ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆa ¨É6É
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 gÀÆ. 180/- ¥Àæw ZÀzÀgÀ CrUÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ gÀÆ. 1.00 PÉÆÃnUÉ ªÀiÁgÁlªÁzÀzÀÄÝ MAzÀÄ DPÀ¹äPÀ (stray case) ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÁVgÀ §ºÀÄzÁVzÉAiÀiÁzÀÝjAzÀ CzÀ£Éßà ¨É6É ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸À®Ä ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAd¸ÀªÉ¤¸À6ÁgÀzÀÄ. DzÀgÉ ¨sÀÆ ªÀiÁ®PÀgÀÄ EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ¤ÃrzÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀÄvÀÄÛ-ªÀÄÄvÀÛ°£À ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÀÅ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ©£ï ±ÉÃwÌ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢ªÉ JA§ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß M¥À৺ÀÄzÁVzÉ. ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°PÀgÀ PÉÆÃjPÉAiÀÄAvÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV Rjâ¹ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ®PÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. EzÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ®PÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G¥À£ÉÆAzÀt C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÁßzsÀj¹ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ©£ï±ÉÃwÌ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆa ¨É6É ¥ÀæPÁgÀ C©üªÀÈ¢ÞPÉëÃvÀæ ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉ d«Ää£À ¨É6É gÀÆ. 43,12,440/- DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀ°è C©üªÀÈ¢ÞUÁV vÀÄA§¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÉZÀÑ gÀÆ. 18.00 ®PÀë PÀrvÀUÉƽ¹zÀgÉ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ. 25.00 ®PÀë ¨sÀƨÉ6É ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
EzÀPÉÌ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjzÀÝ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ®PÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ ¥sÀ®ªÀvÁÛzÀ ¥Àæw ªÀµÀðPÉÌ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2.00 ®PÀë GvÀà£Àß §gÀĪÀ ºÁUÀÆ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¹zÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArgÀĪÀ ©£ï ±ÉÃw ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðªÀżÀî d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV CAzÀgÉ læPï l«Äð£À6ï ¤ªÀiÁðtPÁÌV ©lÄÖ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ. PÁgÀt vÀªÀÄUÉ E£ÀÆß ¸Àé®à ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉaѹPÉÆlÖ°è vÁªÀÅ M¥ÀàAzÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ. F CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¨sÀÆ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ. 30.00 ®PÀëgÀÆ CAvÁ wêÀiÁð¤¹vÀÄ.
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¨sÀÆ ¨É6É ¤zsÀðgÀuÁ ¸À®ºÁ ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ M¥ÀàAzÀzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥Àæw JPÀgÉUÉgÀÆ. 30.00 ®PÀëzÀgÀ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß WÉÆö¹zÀgÀÄ.
¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è G¥À¹ÜvÀjzÀÝ gÉÊvÀgÀÄ F ¨sÀƨÉ6ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß M¥ÀÅàªÀÅzÁV ¸À¨sÉUÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀAzÀ£Á¥ÀðuÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆArvÀÄ."
37. It is thus clear that the Deputy Commissioner suggested Rs.25,00,000/- per acre and the land owners who were present were asking for a little more. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was fixed.
38. The petitioners thereafter received a notice dated 06.05.2011 stating that the KIADB was willing to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre for 6 acres of land.
39. In response, the petitioners, by their letter dated 23.06.2011, stated that they were not agreeable for said sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and demanded for payment of Rupees One Crore per acre to agree for the acquisition.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
40. More than 15 months after the offer of Rs. 30,00,000/- lakhs was made and the response of the petitioners for payment of Rs. 1 crore was received, on 02.08.2012, the petitioners have executed the agreement and indemnity bonds agreeing to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre.
41. The petitioners have thereafter filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to refer the applications of the petitioners dated 23.06.2011 and 27.09.2010 to the competent Civil Court in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. A declaration is also sought that the agreements and indemnity bonds executed by them are invalid and inoperative, and that they do not take away the rights of the petitioners to seek a higher compensation.
42. To summarise, in both these cases, the Board in a meeting had resolved to pay a sum of Rs.09,00,000/- and Rs.30,00,000/- (respectively) per acre and both petitioners had refused this offer, but, subsequently, about
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 a year after the meeting, they have proceeded to enter into agreements consenting to receive the sums fixed by the Price Determination Advisory Committee. B. CONTENTIONS ADVANCED:
43. The petitioners contend that they cannot be bound by their agreements and the acceptance of the amounts under the agreements would not deprive them of their right to seek higher compensation. It is also stated that the petitioners were forced to accept the compensation, since they had lost possession of their lands and yet, were not paid any compensation for more than a year, and in that context, their execution of the agreement or acceptance of compensation would not estop them from seeking a higher compensation.
44. On the other hand, the Board contends that the petitioners voluntarily entered into agreements, whereby they accepted the price determined by the Committee at
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 Rs.13,36,000/- & Rs.30,00,000/- per acre and they are now estopped from seeking a higher compensation.
45. It is submitted that once the land-loser had agreed for a particular sum as compensation and had also executed agreements and indemnity bonds, it would be impermissible for them to then resile from the agreements and demand a higher compensation. It is also contended that the writ petitions had been filed after the petitioners had received the amount of compensation and, therefore, the petitions itself would not be maintainable as the petitioners cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
C. ISSUES:
46. Considering the above, the issues in these writ petitions are as below:
i. Whether the amounts determined as compensation and paid to the land-losers could be considered in this case as the
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492
WP No. 85557 of 2013
C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
amount of compensation that had been
determined by agreement as
contemplated under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act; and ii. Whether the petitioners are estopped from demanding a higher compensation after they have executed the agreements and the indemnity bonds.
D.ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS:
47. In order to examine the contentions and arrive at a conclusion, it would be necessary to provide a brief overview of the statutory provisions in relation to the compensation payable under the Act with specific reference to the phrase "where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement" found in Section 29(2) of the Act.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
48. The KIAD Act is an enactment which provides for securing the establishment of industrial areas, to promote the establishment and orderly development of industries in the State, and for this purpose, establish a Board. The functions of Board, as stipulated in the Act, is to promote and assist the rapid and orderly establishment growth and development of industries, and to provide industrial infrastructural facilities and amenities in industrial areas, apart from establishing, maintaining, developing and managing the industrial estates within the industrial areas. The State is also tasked with developing industrial areas declared by the State Government and make them available for undertakings to establish themselves.
49. In order to achieve this objective, the Board has been conferred with the power to acquire and to hold the property and it has also been empowered to lease, sell or exchange or otherwise transfer any property held by it. The Board is also empowered to purchase by agreement or
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 take on lease or under any form of tenancy any land to erect buildings and to execute such other works as may be necessary.
50. Chapter - VII of the Act provides for Acquisition and Disposal of Land by the Board. Chapter VII states that it can be made applicable only from the date on which the industrial area is declared under Section 1(3) of the Act.
51. Section 28 of Chapter - VII requires the State Government to publish a notification giving notice of its intention to acquire such lands, and on publication of the notification, notices are required to be served on the owner or on the occupier of the land(s) to show-cause as to why the lands should not be acquired. The provision also stipulates that after considering the cause shown by the owner or any other interested person and after hearing them, the State Government is empowered to pass such orders as it deems fit.
52. The provision also stipulates that if the Government is satisfied that any land should be acquired
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 for the purpose specified in the notification, a declaration would have to be issued, and on such declaration being published in the Gazette, such land would stand vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances. The State would then possess the power to call upon the person in possession to surrender possession and if he fails to do so, the State could take possession with such force as may be necessary.
53. Ultimately, the provision states that when the land has been acquired for the Board, the State Government, after it has taken possession of the land, could transfer the possession to the Board for the purpose for which the land had been acquired.
54. Section 291 of the Act provides for Compensation. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 clearly states 1
29. Compensation.- (1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. (4) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (3), the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner or occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested herein to appear before him and state their respective interests in the said land.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 that where any land is acquired by the State under Chapter - VII, it would be bound to pay for such acquisition the compensation determined in accordance with provisions of this Act.
55. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, with which we are mainly concerned in these writ petitions, states that "if the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated" it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.
56. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 states that if no agreement can be reached, the State Government should refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also to the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid. The Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of a reference, is required to serve notice on the owner or occupier of the land and call upon them to state their respective interests.
- 30 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
57. To summarise, Section 29 contemplates that the State Government is required to pay compensation for the acquired lands and if the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement, the same shall be paid in accordance with such agreement; and if there is no such agreement, the State is required to refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid.
58. Section 30 of the Act, before its amendment in 2022, provided for the applicability of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purposes of determining the compensation, but subsequently in the year 2022, Section 30 was amended and a new provision was substituted, by which Sections 23, 23A, 26-30, 64, 65, 69, 72-80, 96,and Schedule I of the Central Act 30 of 2013 were deemed to be a part of KIAD Act, 1966 as if they were reenacted in the body in respect of lands acquired under Chapter - VII of the Act.
- 31 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
59. Section 31 of Chapter - VII provides for delegation of powers by the State Government (as available to it under Chapter - VII)to any of its officers, by the Rules made in that behalf.
60. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 41 of the Act, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Rules, 1966 ("the Rules") have been framed. Rule 14 of said Rules states that the power of the State Government under sub-sections (2), (3), (6), (7) & (8) of Section 28 and sub-sections (1), (2) & (3) of Section 29 were delegated to the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Revenue Sub-Division within their respective jurisdiction or to the Special Land Acquisition Officers or the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officers in the Board with such jurisdiction as the State Government would specify.
61. In other words, by virtue of Rule 14 of the Rules, whenever the term "State Government" is referred to in Sections 28 and 29 of the Act, it would essentially
- 32 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 mean that it is the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Revenue Sub-Division or the Special Land Acquisition Officer or Additional Land Acquisition Officer or the Board.
62. Thus, for the purposes of Section 28 of the Act, it would be the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer as the case may be, who shall be responsible for the services of notice on the land owners, considering the objections and passing orders regarding the necessity of acquiring lands.
63. Similarly, for the purpose of Section 29 of the Act, it would also mean that the amount of compensation would have to be determined by agreement between the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer and the person to be compensated. If there is no agreement between the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer and the person to be compensated, the Assistant
- 33 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer is required to refer the cases to the Deputy Commissioner, who is then required to determine the amount of compensation to be paid.
64. It is therefore clear that if the compensation to be paid is to be determined by agreement, then there must be a meeting of minds between the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer and the person to be compensated; and if there is no such meeting of minds, the matter will have to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the compensation.
65. To put it in simple terms, the law contemplates that an attempt should be made by the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, as the case may be, and the land owner, to agree for the compensation payable and only if this attempt is unsuccessful should the matter
- 34 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the compensation.
66. In light of this clear statutory mandate, the procedure adopted by the authorities in constituting a Price Determination Advisory Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner would be improper as it would be in direct conflict with the statutory mandate. If the Deputy Commissioner is conferred with the power to determine the compensation in the event of disagreement between the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer and the person to be compensated, and if he were to himself head a Committee to determine the price of the land, the intent of the statute to give the power of determination to the Deputy Commissioner in the event of a disagreement would be rendered otiose.
67. To draw an analogy, this procedure would amount to an Appellate Authority being a signatory to the
- 35 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 order of the Original Authority, and thereafter hearing an appeal filed against the order of such authority.
68. Viewed from this angle, the entire approach in both these cases of the Board in constituting a Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, which would determine or suggest the price to be paid as compensation, would be incorrect and contrary to the statute.
69. It is also to be borne in mind that the person to be compensated does not really have the remedy of seeking a reference to the Deputy Commissioner, if the Deputy Commissioner is the Chairperson of a Committee constituted to determine the amount of compensation payable to the land-loser.
70. It must be kept in mind that when the provisions of the statute stipulate a specific manner to be followed to achieve a specific result, the manner suggested is required to be adhered to strictly and the
- 36 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 same cannot be bypassed or diluted or circumvented by adopting a completely different approach.
71. Therefore, it is clear that the very concept of constituting a Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner to determine the compensation payable to the land-loser militates against the statutory provisions, and the decision/suggestion of said Committee would completely vitiate the process of determination of the amount of compensation payable under the agreement.
72. In this regard, the expression "determined by agreement" found in Section 29(2) would assume importance and would become rather crucial in understanding the intent of the law.
73. The term "agreement" has not been defined under the Act. Therefore, to appreciate the true meaning of the term "agreement", one would have to fall back on the meaning of the term "agreement" under the general law.
- 37 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
74. Under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act of 1872, when one person makes a proposal and that proposal is accepted, it translates into a promise and where such promise is for a consideration, an agreement is stated to have been arrived at between the two persons2.
75. In other words, when two persons agree on carrying out a particular act in a particular manner for a lawful consideration, there would be an agreement i.e., as popularly called, there would be a "meeting of the minds"(consensus ad idem).
76. Chapter - I of the Indian Contract Act deals with the communication, acceptance and revocation of proposals. The requirement of said law is that a proposal should be communicated to the other person and this communication becomes complete when it comes to the 2
2. Interpretation-clause.--In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context:--
(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal;
(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when accepted, becomes a promise;
(c) The person making the proposal is called the "promisor", and the person accepting the proposal is called the "promisee";
(d) When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise;
(e) Every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement;
- 38 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 knowledge of the person to whom it is proposed, or when the proposal is put in the course of transmission. Thus, the first step in the concept of arriving at an agreement is the communication of a proposal.
77. In the context of this case, necessarily, the Board would have to first give a proposal regarding the compensation that it is willing to pay to the land-loser and communicate the same to the land-loser.
78. The second step under the Contract Act before arriving at an agreement is the acceptance of the proposal. The requirement of law is that the acceptance should be absolute and unqualified and should be expressed in a usual and reasonable manner. The proposal may, in fact, prescribe the manner of acceptance and if it is prescribed, the acceptance is to be made accordingly.
79. On the proposal being communicated, in order for the proposal to become a promise, the law requires that there must be an absolute and unqualified acceptance of the proposal.
- 39 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
80. The law also stipulates that the acceptance must be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner. It also stipulates that if the proposal itself prescribes the manner in which it is to be accepted and the acceptance is not made in that manner, the proposer, within a reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, may insist that the proposal is to be accepted in the prescribed manner and not otherwise.
81. A proposal can also become a promise, if the acceptance of any promise is made in words. If, however, the proposal or acceptance is made otherwise than in words, the promise is said to be implied.
82. To put it in simple terms, the law recognises that there is an agreement between two persons, when a proposal is made by one person to another and that person signifies his absolute and unqualified acceptance of the proposal. Thus, unless there is a clear proposal communicated to the other person and said proposal is accepted absolutely and unconditionally, the law will not
- 40 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 recognise such transaction as having culminated into an "agreement".
83. In the context of this case, the Board would therefore had to necessarily make a proposal to the land- loser and the land-loser would have had to accept the proposal absolutely and unconditionally. If these two essential and critical ingredients are not met with, it cannot be said that there has been a valid and binding "agreement" regarding the determination of the compensation.
E. APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE PRESENT FACTS:
84. Now, applying the above legal principles, the facts of this case would have to be analysed.
85. In respect of the Dharwad lands, the Advisory Committee, in the meeting held on 26.11.2007, had fixed the market value at Rs.09,00,000/- per acre and during the course of this deliberation, it has been clearly recorded
- 41 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 that the petitioner had made a demand for a much higher sum.
86. Seven months after the meeting, on 16.06.2008, the petitioner has been served with a notice stating that the sum Rs.13,36,000/- was fixed per acre. The petitioner immediately responded by refusing the proposed offer and also made a counter offer stating that he would only accept the acquisition if a sum of Rs.05,91,20,000/- was paid. It is thus clear that the proposal of the KIADB was in fact rejected by the petitioner - land loser and this indicates that there was no agreement.
87. The moment the petitioner had rejected the proposal of the Advisory Committee as per the mandate of Section 29(2) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer was bound to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner.
- 42 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
88. However, as already noticed above, when the Deputy Commissioner himself had headed the committee which had fixed the price at Rs.09,00,000/-,the question of referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner would not really arise, since that would amount to appealing "from Caesar to Caesar".
89. It may be pertinent to note here that in both these cases, the authorities have not taken any steps pursuant to the refusal of the offer by the petitioner. It may also be pertinent to notice her that the possession of the petitioner's land in case of Dharwad lands was taken over on 16.06.2008 and the petitioner had lost his land to the Board. It is obvious that if a person were to lose his land, especially a person who is dependent on the land for his very livelihood, his situation would be precarious and fragile.
90. If the person who takes over the land and who is obliged to compensate him for the same does not compensate him and merely sits over the matter
- 43 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 apathetically, it is plainly obvious that the person who has lost his land would be seriously disadvantaged and at the mercy of the person who has dispossessed him and on whom he is dependent on for securing the true price for his land. In such a situation, it is also glaringly obvious that person who has taken possession of the land would be in a position to dominate the will of the person who has lost his land.
91. Sub-section (1) of Section 163 of the Indian Contract Act states that a contract is said to be induced by undue influence where the relations between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and he uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
92. Section 16(2) of the Indian Contract Act also 3
16."Undue influence" defined.--(1) A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence"
where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another-- (a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or (b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress. (3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other. Nothing in this sub-
section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
- 44 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 declares that a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another when he holds real or apparent authority over the other.
93. If it is noticed that the Board was essentially the State and the land had stood vested in it and it had also taken over the possession of the land belonging to the petitioner without paying him any compensation, it is obvious that the State was not only holding real authority over the petitioner, but it was also in a position to force the petitioner to yield to its demand of accepting the compensation that it had offered.
94. The withholding of the payment of compensation or the withholding of the reference to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 29(2) of the Act would, by itself, be conclusive proof of the dominant power of the State that possessed over the land-loser and it was actually exercised.
95. The facts, by themselves, speak in a rather boisterous manner, that it only took ten months of
- 45 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 depriving the petitioner (Dharwad lands)of his rightful compensation to ensure that he meekly surrendered and gave up his demand of Rs. 1.20 lakhs per gunta and settle for the amount of Rs.13,36,000/- per acre that had been offered to him in June, 2008.
96. The fact that there was no communication of any kind between the period of June, 2008 and May, 2009 in the matter of determination of the compensation, and yet the petitioner had a sudden change of heart and he voluntarily approached the Board to inform them that he was willing to accept the said amount, speaks volumes about the desperation of the petitioner to accept the compensation that had been offered. It is obvious that the withholding of the compensation and stalling the entire process resulted in the capitulation of the petitioner and gave up his zest for fighting for his right to claim the true market value for his land.
97. The fact that the petitioner had declared his intention to undertake a fast unto death for payment of
- 46 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 the compensation for the structures and trees, and actually undertook the same, only after which the compensation was paid towards the structures, clearly proves that the petitioner was pushed to the very brink.
98. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether any deliberations took place between the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer and the land-loser in this interregnum of ten long months. There is also nothing to indicate as to how the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition /the Additional Land Acquisition Officer was able to persuade the land- loser to agree to the proposal that had been made in June, 2008 suddenly in May, 2009.
99. In the absence of any material to indicate that there were any deliberations to induce the land-loser to accept the initial offer which he had rejected, it is clear that the mere acceptance of the first offer was as a result of the desperate situation that the land-loser had been
- 47 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 boxed into, and it is clear that there was no "compensation determined by agreement".
100. If this matter is viewed pragmatically, it will have to be noticed that the situation was that the State had taken away the entire lands of the land owner and had left him without any avocation. The State, by withholding the compensation for a year, had basically pushed the petitioner into a corner from which he had no escape, and it is quite natural that the land-loser would be driven to the wall and would have no other option but to yield to the demands of the State.
101. Viewed in this background, the acceptance of the original offer of Rs.13,36,000/- despite it having been rejected earlier by the land loser - petitioner cannot be accepted as "determination by agreement" as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the Indian Contract Act.
- 48 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
102. Section 19A4 of the Indian Contract Act empowers the Court to set aside a contract that has been induced by undue influence, either partly or absolutely, and on such terms and conditions as the Court may deem just. Since it is clear that the agreement upon which reliance is placed by the Board was induced by undue influence, the same cannot be sustained and it will have to be set aside.
103. As far as the Ballari Lands are concerned, in the meeting held on 29.09.2010, the petitioners had clearly expressed that they were not willing to accept the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre and they had in fact made a demand of a much higher sum and had also cited a sale deed of a neighbouring land, in which 37 guntas of land had been sold for rupees One Crore per acre. Despite this objection, the petitioners were served with a notice fixing the compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre. 4 19A. Power to set aside contract induced by undue influence.--When consent to an agreement is caused by undue influence, the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so caused.
Any such contract may be set aside either absolutely or, if the party who was entitled to avoid it has received any benefit thereunder, upon such terms and conditions as to the Court may seem just.
- 49 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
104. It is also on record that the petitioners did make an application seeking enhancement of compensation as per their representation dated 27.09.2010.In light of the fact that the petitioners had clearly expressed that they were not agreeable for the proposal of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre, the matter was required to be referred to the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated under Section 29(2) of the Act.
105. It is also to be noticed here that as already observed in the Dharwad lands' case, the situation is more or less similar and the Board was definitely in a position to dominate the will of the land-losers. It is also to be noticed here that the petitioners did present an application on 23.06.2011 (Annexure-P) seeking enhancement of compensation but no action was taken after said request was made.
106. It is also to be noticed here that the value of Rs.30,00,000/- per acre was fixed in the month of September, 2010 and the petitioners were not paid any
- 50 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 sum for nearly two years thereafter, and it is only after the petitioners agreed to execute the documents,was the compensation as determined by the Committee paid to them.
107. The acceptance of this compensation at Rs.30,00,000/- per acre was therefore induced by the undue influence and the same will have to be set aside. F. CONCLUSION
108. It is hereby declared that the agreements executed by the petitioners in both these cases were vitiated as they were obtained by exerting undue influence on them and they cannot therefore be bound by the terms of said agreements.
109. For the reasons stated above, the agreements upon which reliance is placed by the Board in cases pertaining to the Dharwad Lands and the Ballari Lands to evidence acceptance of compensation, shall stand quashed.
- 51 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
110. As already stated above, since the entire approach of the authorities in holding a public meeting by constituting a Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner is fundamentally opposed to the mandate of Section 29(2), any payment made on the basis of the decision of the Committee would not amount to payments of compensation which has been determined under an agreement.
111. Since the Deputy Commissioner has himself suggested the compensation payable while heading the Committee, it is obvious that the matter cannot now be referred to him to determine the compensation. As a consequence, the authorities shall refer the matter to the Civil Court, who shall determine the compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to.
112. The Civil Court shall treat the matter as a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act of1894, thereafter hold an enquiry to determine whether the claim of the petitioners for the higher compensation is
- 52 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 justified, either wholly or in-part, and pass appropriate orders.
113. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. G. DIRECTIONS:
114. Before parting with this case, it would be necessary to lay down the procedure which the Board is required to follow under Section 29(2) for determining the amount of compensation payable by agreement.
115. This has become necessary since there are no statutory rules framed under the Act in this regard and also because the delay in determining the compensation violates the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, while causing serious prejudice to the land-loser, thereby giving the officials of the State an unfair advantage over a person who has lost his land.
- 53 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014
116. The Board shall follow the following procedure in the matter of determining compensation under Section 29 of the Act.
a. The Board shall not follow the procedure of constituting a Committee to determine the price of the land for the purposes of Section 29(2) of the Act as the same would be contrary to the statutory provisions;
b. The Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, as the case may be, shall make a written offer to the land-loser within a month of the declaration under Section 28(4)being published, clearly stating the amount of compensation that he is prepared to offer for the lands acquired;
c. If the land loser were to refuse the offer in writing, the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land
- 54 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 Acquisition Officer shall within a month thereafter, refer the matter of the Deputy Commissioner for determining the amount of compensation;
d. If the land-loser is incapable of being notified of the written offer or if he fails to respond to the offer within the aforementioned period of 2 months from the written offer of the Board/the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, it shall be presumed that the land-loser has refused to accept compensation by way of an agreement and the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer shall forthwith refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for determining the compensation;
- 55 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 e. In either of these cases, the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer shall deposit the amount that he has offered as compensation, in the Civil Court, and the Civil Court shall thereafter invest the same in a Fixed Deposit;
f. If the land-loser were to make a counter-offer to the written proposal of the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, it would be open for the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to either consider the counter-offer or reject the counter-offer or even embark upon a further course of deliberation. However, in no event shall the deliberations be continued beyond 6
- 56 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 months from the date of publication of the declaration in the Gazette;
g. On the expiry of six months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 28(4) in the Gazette, whether the land-loser has agreed to the offer or not, the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the agreement and also deposit the amount that it had offered, in the Civil Court, which shall invest the amount in a Fixed Deposit;
h. It is hereby clarified that mere deposit of the amount offered by the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer would not disentitle the land-losers for any interest that they may be entitled to in terms of
- 57 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 the provisions relating to payment of interest under the Land Acquisition Act;
i. The Deputy Commissioner shall within 6months of the reference to him by the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer determine the compensation as provided under Section 29(3) of the Act; and j. The land-loser will then have the option of seeking a reference to the Civil Court and he would be entitled to seek withdrawal of the amount that has been deposited pursuant to the offer made by the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer (only in cases where there is no dispute regarding the entitlement of the land-loser).
k. It is also made clear that it would be open for the KIADB to straightaway refer the matter to
- 58 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4492 WP No. 85557 of 2013 C/W WP No. 112340 of 2014 the Deputy Commissioner for determination of compensation, if it does not wish to enter into the process of determination of compensation by way of an Agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNP*/CT:BCK