Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Karnataka State Commission on 3 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.36438/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS BOARD,
ZONAL OFFICE, K.R.S. ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 016. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION
FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES
NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. SRI RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SIDDA @ BICHHA
R/AT IMMAVU HUNDI VILLAGE,
K.S. HUNDI POST,
CHIKKAYANNA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANAGUD TALUK - 571 302,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
3. SRI S.M. ARUNESH
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA,
R/AT SITAPURA VILLAGE,
ARALAKUPPE POST, CHINAKURALI HOBLI,
-2-
PANDAVAPURA TALUK - 571 434
MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. SRI B. SUDHAKAR PAI
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O. SRINIVAS PAI,
R/AT NO.L-4, 1ST FLOOR,
UNITY BUILDING, J.C. ROAD,
BANGALORE ROAD - 560 002. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI B. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
MISS. LEKHA G.D. APPEARING FOR
SRI K.G. KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4;
R-3 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2018 PASSED IN CASE
NO.319/2017 (LAND) BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 22/02/2023 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-the Special Land Acquisition Officer has called in question the order dated 24.05.2018 passed in Case No.319/2017 (Land) by the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay compensation in terms -3- of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.12.2015 or to withdraw the acquisition notification.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that:
A preliminary notification under section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KIAD Act' for short) proposing to acquire various extent of lands including lands measuring 4 acres in new Sy. No.539 old No. 371 of Immavu Village, Chikkayanna Chatra Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District were notified. The 2nd respondent after the preliminary notification, sold the land in question to the 3rd respondent under registered Sale Deed and the final notification was issued in the year 2007 under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act, the compensation was paid to the purchaser-3rd respondent herein. It appears that an application was filed by the daughter of the 2nd respondent before the -4- Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PTCL Act' for short) and the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the petition filed by the daughter of the 2nd respondent.
3. The 2nd respondent made the representation to the petitioner- the Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting the compensation based on the order of the Assistant Commissioner. A writ petition was filed by the 2nd respondent seeking a writ of mandamus in W.P. No.42444/2016 to consider the representation of the 2nd respondent, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court. The 2nd respondent, after the dismissal of the writ petition, again filed a petition before the 1st respondent- Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes seeking implementation of the -5- Assistant Commissioner's order, the 1st respondent passed an impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the compensation in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner or to withdraw the acquisition notification. Aggrieved by which, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed the present writ petition.
4. No objections have been filed by the respondents.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
6. Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order passed by the 1st respondent is one without jurisdiction and the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay back the compensation or to deliver back the possession of the land is de hors the powers and jurisdiction of the Commissioner as enumerated under -6- the Karnataka Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002. Learned counsel would further contend that the order passed by the 1st respondent is not justifiable as the same is passed without holding enquiry. Learned counsel would also contend that the acquisition made under Section 28 (4) of KIAD Act cannot be nullified by an officer of the State Government and the order passed by the Commissioner is beyond the jurisdiction and needs to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel would further contend that under Sections 8 and 10 of the KIAD Act, the functions and powers of the Commission are clearly defined and the Commission cannot investigate any matter because such powers are exclusively vested with the Civil Court.
-7-
8. To buttress his submission, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
i. Karnataka Antibiotics and Anothers Vs. National Commission SC and ST Other reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3305 [Karnataka Antibiotics] ii. Hoornaz Banu and another Vs. The President, Karnataka State Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Commission and others in W.P. No.18027/2010 iii. Collector, Bilaspur Vs. Ajit P.K. Jogi and Others reported in (2011) 10 SCC 357 [Collector, Bilaspur] iv. All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606 [All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association]
9. Per contra, Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent tried to justify the order passed by the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes contending -8- that as on the date of the preliminary notification, the name of the 2nd respondent appeared in the revenue records and thus, the learned counsel sought to dismiss the writ petition.
10. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser from 3rd respondent in whose favour the compensation was awarded, has relied upon the following judgments:
i. All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association and Others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 606;
ii. Jayamma and others Vs. State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue and others in W.P. No.9723/2020 and iii. Ganganna Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P. No.46279/2013 -9-
11. This Court has considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.
12. It is undisputed fact that the preliminary notification under Section 28 sub-clause (1) of the KIAD Act was issued in the year 2006 and pursuant to which, the notice dated 18.11.2006 was issued under Section 28 (3) also not in dispute and the 2nd respondent executed a registered sale deed in favour of 3rd respondent and the final notification under sub- clause (4) of Section 28 of the KIAD Act was issued in the year 2007 and the compensation was paid to the purchaser-3rd respondent on 05.09.2007.
13. It is also relevant to note that the daughter of 2nd respondent filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 5 (1) of the PTCL Act and the same was allowed by the Assistant
- 10 -
Commissioner by its order dated 16.12.2015. It appears that based on the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.12.2015, a representation was submitted by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner herein requesting to pay the compensation amount which was paid to the 3rd respondent.
14. The petitioner having not considered the representation of the 2nd respondent, 2nd respondent filed writ petition before this Court in W.P. No.42444/2016 and this Court dismissed the writ petition observing as follows:
"5. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent - KIADB submits that compensation amount has been already paid to the owner of the property who had purchased the same and whose name was entered in the revenue records; if petitioner had any right by virtue of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which is
- 11 -
apparently subsequent to the acquisition proceeding getting completed on payment of compensation, it was open for petitioner to initiate appropriate proceeding before the Court of law to recover the amount from the person who had received the amount.
6. I find considerable substance in this submission of Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, learned counsel. This is not a case where the KIADB has disbursed the compensation to a person who was not entitled to receive the same. Indeed, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order in the year 2015 (16.12.2015), but the acquisition proceedings have commenced in the year 2006 culminating in disbursal of compensation to the land owner who had purchased the land under a registered sale deed and whose name was recorded in the revenue records. In such circumstances, mandamus cannot be issued to the KIADB to pay the amount to the petitioner once again.
(emphasis supplied)
7. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed declining to interfere in the matter. If law permits, it is open to petitioner to
- 12 -
proceed in accordance with law against the purchaser of the property from the petitioner."
15. This Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent seeking a writ of mandamus held that the petitioner has disbursed the compensation to the person, who was entitled to receive i.e., purchaser of the property and the acquisition proceedings have been commenced in the year 2006, culminating in disbursal of the compensation to the land owner who has purchased the land under the registered sale deed as the name was recorded in the revenue records. In terms of the said reasoning, the writ petition was dismissed.
16. The petitioner suppressing the orders passed by this Court in writ petition stated supra, again made a request to the 1st respondent to hold the enquiry and for a direction to the petitioner to pay the compensation as per the order of the Assistant
- 13 -
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner-1st respondent exceeding the powers as enumerated under the Karnataka Act 20 of 2002 issued a direction to pay the compensation as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner or to withdraw the notification from the acquisition proceedings and to hand over the possession.
17. The order of the State-Assistant Commissioner is beyond the scope as enumerated under the Act. The Commission would constitute under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 2002. Section 8 of the said Act of Chapter III enumerates the functions of the Commission, which reads as under:
"8. Functions of the Commission.- The functions of the commission shall be as follows,-
- 14 -
(a) to investigate and examine the working of various safeguards provided in the constitution of India or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the Government for the welfare and protection of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and;
(b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguard of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities;
(c) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to evaluate the progress of their development in the State.
(d) to make recommendations as to the measures that should be taken by the State for the effective implementation of safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and socio economic development of the Scheduled Castes and the
- 15 -
Scheduled Tribes and to make report to the State Government annually and at such other time as the Commission may deems fit.
(e) to discharge such other functions in relation to the protection, welfare, development and advancement of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as may be prescribed:
Provided that if any matter specified in this section is dealt with by the National commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India the State Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall cease to have jurisdiction on such matter."
18. Section 10 of the Act confers powers on the commission and in the aid of the discharge of functions enumerated in Section 8, which reads as under:
"10. Powers of Commission.-The Commission shall, while investigating any
- 16 -
matter under section 8, have all the powers of a civil court in trying a suit and in particular, in respect of the following maters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of the State and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy there of from any court or office;
(e) issuing Commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed."
19. This being the scope of powers and functions, the action taken by the Government under Section 9 of the Act directing the petitioner to pay the compensation or to deliver back the possession is one
- 17 -
without jurisdiction and the same calls for interference.
20. A plain reading of the provisions would lead to an unmistakable interpretation that the powers and functions enumerated to the Commission in the nature of investigation and examination of various safe guards provided to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The provisions do not provide the Commissioner with such power to entertain such kind of petition that is filed by the 2nd respondent seeking for a direction to pay the compensation and contrary to the orders passed in W.P. No.42444/2016.
21. The Apex Court, in the case of All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees' Welfare Association stated supra, has held that only procedural powers of Civil Court are given to the
- 18 -
Commission and paragraph Nos.10 and 11 read as under:
"10. Interestingly, here, in clause (8) of Article 338, the words used are "the Commission shall ... have all the powers of the Civil Court trying a suit". But the words "all the powers of a Civil Court" have to be exercised "while investigating any matter referred to in sub-clause (a) or inquiring into any complaint referred to in sub-clause (b) of clause 5". All the procedural powers of a Civil Court are given to the Commission for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into these matters and that too for that limited purpose only. The powers of a Civil Court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution.
11. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4-3-1993. The order itself being bad for want of jurisdiction, all other questions and
- 19 -
considerations raised in the appeal are redundant. The High Court was justified in taking the view it did. The appeal is dismissed. No costs."
(emphasis supplied)
22. In another judgment, the Apex Court in the Case of Collector, Bilaspur stated supra has held at paragraph No.20 as under:
"20. The Commission has dealt with the objection that it had no jurisdiction to determine the caste status of an individual, referred to its duties and functions in detail and concluded thus:
"Thus the Commission is fully
empowered to enquire into any
complaint relating to bogus community certificate which would otherwise have the effect of depriving the genuine ST candidates from getting admissions to professional courses etc. or appointments to posts reserved for them or from election to the elected bodies from the constituencies reserved for them. Since its inception, the
- 20 -
Commission has taken up enquiries in thousands of cases of complaints of false caste certificates, either directly or through its State Offices or the agencies concerned of the State Governments and about 800 such cases are still pending with the Commission which are being pursued.
* * *
It is therefore clear that the
objections raised by the respondent are not sustainable and the Commission is well within its rights to enquire into the matter to fine the genuineness of the ST certificate in possession of Shri Ajit P.K. Jogi, which enabled him to become an MLA from a constituency reserved for the STs."
23. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Karnataka Antibiotics stated supra has answered the limited powers to issue such directions at paragraph No.12 as under:
- 21 -
"12. Article 338 of the Constitution of India specifies for Constitution of National Commission of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court in All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST employees' welfare association vs. Union of India (Supra) held that "all the procedural powers of civil court given to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe by Article 338(8) of the Constitution of India are for the limited purpose of investigating any matter under Article 338(5)(a) or inquiring into any complaint, under Article 338(5)(b). The powers of a civil court of granting injunctions, temporary or permanent, do not inhere in the Commission nor can such a power be inferred or derived from a reading of clause (8) of Article 338 of the Constitution. The Commission having not been specifically granted any power to issue interim injunctions, lacks the authority to issue an order of the type found in the letter dated 4.3.1993 directing the Bank to stop the promotion process pending further investigation and final verdict in the matter."
- 22 -
24. The order passed by the 1st respondent is in the power of the Civil Court. Merely because there are powers and functions of the commission as extracted herein above, will not confer the commission with the jurisdiction to entertain to hold enquiry and for direction to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount.
25. This Court has categorically held in W.P. No.42444/2016 as stated supra that the disbursal of the compensation to the land owner, who purchased the land under the registered sale deed and the order passed by the Commissioner is contrary to the provisions of the Act and one without jurisdiction is a non-est in the eye of law.
26. For the reasons stated supra, this Court pass the following:
- 23 -
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 24.05.2018 passed in
Case No.319/2017 by the 1st respondent at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.
iii. It is needless to observe that if the 2nd respondent has any right by virtue of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner which is apparently subsequent to the acquisition proceedings culminated in payment of compensation, it is open for the 2nd respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Court of law to recover the amount from the person who has received the compensation.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE S*