Karnataka High Court
Sri C V Krishnareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.15996-16003/2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri C.V.Krishnareddy,
Aged about 59 years.
2. Sri C.V.Ramachandra Reddy,
Aged about 57 years.
3. Sri C.V.Shankara Reddy,
Aged about 55 years.
4. Sri C.V.Ganesh Reddy,
Aged about 49 years.
5. Sri C.V.Srirama Reddy,
Aged about 47 years.
6. Sri C.V.Babu Reddy,
Aged about 45 years.
7. Sri C.V.Balachandra Reddy,
Aged about 42 years.
8. Sri C.V. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 40 years.
All are S/o late Chikkavenkatappa Reddy,
And all are R/at Mahadeva Kodigehalli,
Jala Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk.
2
Now R/at No.17,
Anjaneya Temple Street,
Doddabanasawadi,
Bangalore - 560 043. ...Petitioners
(By Sri G.Gangi Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by the Secretary,
(Industries Development),
Department of Commerce and Industry,
Multistoried Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Executive Member,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(Hardware Park),
KIADB, No.3, 1st Cross,
Kheni Building, 3rd Floor,
Ghandinagar,
Bangalore - 560 009. ... Respondents
(By Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, AGA for R-1,
Sri P.V.Chandrashekhar, Advocate for R-2 and R-3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-K dated
21/28.12.2012 passed by the 3rd respondent and etc.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing in
'B' group this day, the Court made the following:
3
ORDER
The petitioners have called into question the award, dated 28.12.2012, which was approved on 19.3.2013 determining the market value at the rate of `4,67,360/- per acre for the lands in question.
2. Sri G.Gangi Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents have awarded the compensation at the rate of `60 lakhs per acre for similar lands acquired under the same notification. He submits that the fixation of `60 lakhs per acre is based on the agreement between the land-owners and the respondents. He therefore submits that the determination of the market value at the rate of `4,67,360/- per acre amounts to committing a fraud by the respondents. He submits that this Court, by its order, dated 21.2.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.47750-52/2012 and other connected petitions not only quashed the award but also imposed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notice till the date of payment.
3. Sri H.T.Narendra Prasad, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 4 submits that the consent award cannot be made the basis for the passing of the award on merit. He submits that the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.Nos.16642-649/2012, which came to be disposed of by this Court, by its order, dated 22.6.2012 directing the respondent No.3 to pass the order under Section 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. He submits that the petitioners accepted the said order. Further, they have sought its implementation by filing the contempt petition. Now they cannot turn around and say that the consent award ought to have been passed. He submits that at the most the fixation of `60 lakhs per acre based on the consent could be used as a factor, which may weigh with the Reference Court while determining the market value.
4. Sri P.V.Chandrashekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that if the impugned award is not acceptable to the petitioners, their only remedy is to make the application for referring the matter to the Reference Court invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He submits that the writ petition is not entertainable for considering the challenge to the award. He submits that there are rival claimants to the compensation-amounts. He submits that the 5 respondent No.3 has referred in the general award to the pendency of O.S.No.273/2009 and O.S.No.159/2012.
5. The facts of this case and the facts of W.P.Nos.47750- 52/2012 are entirely different. It is trite that the award is virtually in the nature of an offer made by the Government. If the offer is not acceptable, the aggrieved party has to set into motion the land acquisition law. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides for the redressal of a party's grievance over the awarding of lesser or lower amounts. I therefore decline to quash the impugned award and decline to direct the respondents to pay the compensation at the rate of `60 lakhs per acre. As rightly pointed out by the respondents' learned advocates, the determination and payment of `60 lakhs per acre to the similarly placed lands, where their owners had given the consent, could be a relevant factor while determining the compensation.
6. It is trite that the Reference Court has to determine the market value taking into account all the relevant materials. No material can be eschewed from being considered. Whether the petitioners are entitled to `60 lakhs or less than that or more 6 than that and who is entitled to receive the compensation are all the matters falling within the province of the Reference Court.
7. I dismiss these petitions keeping all the contentions open. Needless to observe that the liberty is reserved to the petitioners to make the necessary application invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking the reference of the matter to the Reference Court.
8. Though the impugned award bears the date 28.12.2012, its approval is granted by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 19.3.2013. These petitions are filed within two weeks. These petitions have been pending here till today. The petitioners are to be permitted to file the reference application within 75 days from today. The law prescribes the period of 90 days within which the reference application has to be filed. The petitioners have taken 15 days to file these petitions. Those 15 days are to be included for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. But the period of the pendency of these petitions from 3.4.2013 till today (13.6.2013) has to be excluded for the purpose of limitation, as the petitioners have been prosecuting the wrong remedy.
7
9. In the result, 75 days' time is granted to the petitioners to make the necessary reference application. If they are filed within 75 days from today, the respondent No.3 shall refer the matter to the Reference Court without raising the issue of limitation.
10. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD