Karnataka High Court
Sri. Syed Khader vs The Thasildar on 16 August, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.448/2021(LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SYED KHADER S/O SYED GAFFER
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.65
5TH BLOCK, 1ST MAIN
H.B.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043.
2. SRI SYED PEER S/O SYED GAFFAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.65
5TH BLOCK, 1ST MAIN
H.B.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043.
3. DR. RAHAMATHULLA
S/O LATE MR. MOHAMMED GHOUSE
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.16/1
1ST FLOOR, ACHUTHRAYA MUDALIAR
ROAD, FRAZER TOWN POST
BENGALURU - 560 005.
4. SMT. FAHIMA BEGUM D/O ABDUL SUBHAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NEW NO. 15/1, NEW BAMBOOB BAZAAR
BENGALURU - 560 051. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI PADMANABHA V MAHALE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI PATIL JAGADEESH GOUD, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. THE THASILDAR
LAND ACQUISITION & VALUATION
COMMITTEE, BMRCL LAND ACQUISITION
SECTION, GATE NO.10, CHINNASWAMY
STADIUM, M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE AUTHORIZED SINGANTORY
BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION
(A JOINT VENTURE OF GOVERNMENT
OF KARNATAKA AND GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA) REGD. OFFICE: BMTC COMPLEX
3RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BENGLAURU - 560 027.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER - 2, K.I.A.D.B.
(METRO RAILWAY PROJECT)
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R-3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2021 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE W.P.NO.51803/2019 (LA-
KIADB), ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE APPELLANTS ARE
CONCERNED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL AND ALLOW THE ABOVE
WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful petitioners challenging the order dated 3 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.51803/2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the material available on record.
3. Brief facts that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, that the property in question belonging to the appellants was acquired and consent award was passed on the basis of guidance value of the property in the locality. According to the appellants, the guidance value as found in Annexure-A with regard to the land in question is Rs.1,07,700/-, while the respondents have valued the property at the rate of Rs.39,894/-, Rs.48,945/- etc., It is under these circumstances, the appellants had approached this Court in W.P.No.51803/2019 with a prayer to quash the notices issued to the appellants fixing the guidance value of the property and the appellants had sought for quantifying the compensation in terms of the guidance value as provided in the Gazette Notification dated 30.03.2017. 4 The learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge having observed that the respondents had taken into consideration the guidance value of the property mentioned at Sl.No.160 of the notification at Rs.1,07,700/-, was not justified in denying the said amount of the compensation when the property in question is also found in Sl.No.160 of the notification. He submits that since there is a consent award, there cannot be any discrimination on payment of compensation.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the award passed in respect of property in question is a consent award, and therefore, the appellants are not justified in seeking enhancement of compensation amount. They submit that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh D.Bankapur vs. State of Karnataka & Others in W.A.No.30007/2013 & connected matters disposed of on 28.03.2013 has considered the similar question and 5 has held that in a case of consent award, the land owners' cannot challenge the compensation amount awarded to them.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both sides and also perused the material available on record.
7. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition, in paragraph No.10, has observed as follows:
"10. On perusal of the guidelines value, this Court finds that the contention of the petitioner that the property in question should be taken as one falling only under Sl.No.160 under the guidelines value cannot be accepted. It is very clear from a reading of the guidelines value that there are various properties in Nagavara. Sl.No.160 pertains to those properties which are adjacent to the outer ring road.In the said category no doubt Sy.No.138 and 139
also find place. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the authorities have considered all the properties situated in Nagavara. When at Sl.No.160 the guideline value is with respect to the properties adjacent to outer ring road, the authorities cannot close their eyes and accept the contention of the petitioner that since Sy.No.138 and 139 is found in l.No.160, the authorities cannot consider the other classifications issued by the State Government in the guidelines value notification. When the 6 authorities have found that there are other classification at Sl.No.115, 116, 165 etc,. and more- so in view of the fact that the property in question is abutting 'Akshay Orchid Apartment' on the western side, the authorities cannot be faulted if that they have arrived at a conclusion that the guidelines value of the property in question cannot be fixed in terms of Sl.No.160 since the property in question is not adjacent to outer ring road."
8. Therefore, it is very clear that though the property of the appellants is found at Sl.No.160 of the notification, the said property is admittedly not situated adjacent to the outer ring road, but on the other hand, the same is situated abutting Akshay Orchid Apartment. Under these circumstances, we find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. Further in the case of Suresh D.Bankapur's case (supra), in paragraph No.24.2, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as follows:
"24.2. Once the agreement in respect of the amount of compensation is arrived at and if the person interested signs the agreement and accepts the agreed amount as full and final settlement, either under Section 29(2) of KIAD Act or in the 7 course of enquiry under Section 11(2) of the L.A. Act, it becomes final and the acquisition proceedings insofar as such person is concerned, stands concluded/terminated and it is not open to such person to make an application either under Section 18 of the L.A. Act or to file a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking the reliefs, as prayed for, in the present petitions."
10. It is not in dispute that compensation has been awarded to the appellants in the present case on the basis of consent award. Under these circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this appeal. Writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE NMS