Karnataka High Court
Shri C Bhaskaran vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2025
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION No.7994 OF 2017 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI C. BHASKARAN
S/O LATE P.K.PANIKER,
RESIDING AT NO.153,
5TH CROSS, SIDDAPURA,
JAYANAGAR I BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 011.
2 . SHRI. C. PRAMOD
S/O SHRI.C.GOPALAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.153, 5TH CROSS, SIDDAPURA,
JAYANAGAR I BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 011.
... PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
(BY SRI. K.N. PHANEENDRA SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SAROJA
HANGARAKI SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
2
BANGALORE-560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2
NO.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN,
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. AUGUSTA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
17/1, CAMPBELL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 047
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. MADHUSUDAN R., NAIK SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09.02.2004 UNDER SECTION 28(1)
OF THE KIAD ACT ANNEXURE-B AND FINAL NOTIFICATION
DATED 19.12.2005 UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF KIAD ACT
ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
3
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs;
(i) . Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or
order Quashing notification bearing No.
CI255SPQ2001(P)dated 9.2.2004 under Section
28(1) of the KIAD Act, ANNEXURE B and final
notification No.CI:126:SPQ: 2005 dated
19.12.2005 under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act
ANNEXURE-D.
(ii) . Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or
order quashing allotment letter bearing No.
IADB/HO/Allot/ Secy/ 1540-SUC/ 16093/ 14-15
dated 10.3.2015 ANNEXURE-Q and the possession
certificate bearing No. IADB/DO/-2/2336/2015-16
dated 25.1.2016 and consequently direct the
Respondent 2 to 4 to hand over possession of
item No. 1,2,and 4 of the scheduled properties
and direct respondent 2 and 3 to hand over
possession of item No. 3 of schedule property.
(ii)(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ
or order Quashing General Award dated
05.02.2018 and dated 22.08.2023 Annexure T
and U passed by the respondent No.3.
(iii). Grant such other and further relief as just in
the interest of justice.
4
2. Necessary to note that though the Petitioners originally filed
the above writ petition seeking quash of preliminary
notification dated 09.02.2004 and the final Notification dated
19.12.2005 as per prayer (i) and (ii) subsequently by an
amendment which was allowed on 04.02.2025, the Petitioners
have sought quashing of the General Award dated 05.02.2018
and dated 22.08.2023 Annexures T and U passed by the
respondent No.3. After addressing the arguments a Memo
dated 03.04.2025 is filed on behalf of the Petitioners stating
that the petitioners would restrict their prayer challenging the
amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners and would
not seek to press the prayers challenging the acquisition. The
said memo is taken on record and consequently matter is being
adjudicated only to the extent of relief No. (ii)(a).
3. Case of the petitioners is that;
(a) One Sri C. Sridharan was the absolute owner of the
property bearing survey number 117/2 measuring 31
guntas, survey number 117/3 measuring 33 guntas,
survey number 116 measuring 35 guntas and survey
number 117/3 measuring 18.5 gundas, totally
5
measuring 2 acres and 37.5 guntas situated at
Amani Bellanduru Khane Village, Vartur Hobli,
Bangalore, East Taluk, described more fully in the
schedule to the writ petition as item numbers 1 to 4
( hereinafter referred to "Schedule Property"). That
item Nos.3 and 4 of the schedule property were
converted from agriculture to non-agricultural
residential purposes as per the order dated
18.11.1999.
(b) That the respondent No.1 had issued a notification
dated 10.12.2001 under Section 3 (1) of Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, (hereinafter
referred to as KIAD Act), declaring the schedule
property as industrial area. Respondent No.1
thereafter issued a preliminary notification dated
09.02.2004, under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act.
Said Sri C Sridharan had submitted his objection on
25.05.2004 opposing acquisition, contending that he
had purchased the schedule property for the
commercial purposes of establishment of software
6
technology park and had requested to drop the
schedule property from acquisition proceedings. That
without providing any opportunity the respondent
No.1 had issued final notification under Section 28(4)
of KIAD Act on 19.12.2005 in which the schedule
property of the petitioners is shown at serial number
32, 34 and 35 of the notification. No notice has been
issued to Sri C Sridharan asking him to hand over
the possession of the schedule property, though the
respondent No.3 claimed to have taken possession of
the land.
(c) That respondent No.3 issued a notice dated
17.01.2007 under Section 29(2) offering to pay a
sum of Rs. 65 lakhs per acre as compensation and
called upon the owner to submit the records and give
consent for acquisition by agreement if he was
interested. In response to said notice,
Sri C Sridharan had submitted his reply stating that
he was not consenting for acquisition and had made
it clear that the lands were converted and the
7
market value of the said land at the time of issuance
of the preliminary notification was about Rs.4.00
crores per acre and he had further requested that if
the respondents still intended to go ahead for
acquisition, the same had to be referred for
adjudication for determination of appropriate amount
of compensation.
(d) That said Sri C Sridharan passed away on
19.10.2007 bequeathing item number 1 and 2 of the
schedule property in favor of Shri C. Bhaskaran the
petitioner No.1 herein and item number 3 and 4 of
the schedule property in favour of Shri C. Pramod
the Petitioner No.2 herein in terms of a Will dated
19.09.2007 and Codicil dated 29.09.2007. Thus
upon the death of Sri C. Sridharan, petitioner No.1
became absolute owner in respect of item No.1 and
2 and petitioner No.2 became absolute owner in
respect of item number 3 and 4 of the schedule
property.
8
(e) That on 05.05.2008 respondent No.3 issued a
notice under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act
addressed to Sri C Sridharan, in response wife of late
Sri C Sridharan issued a reply on 23.05.2008
declining to accept the offer and made it clear that
she would be agreeable to accept the market value
as compensation or else requested for adjudication.
That despite repeated requests and demands
respondents did not adjudicate upon the market
value of the schedule property and pass any award.
In the circumstances a representation was made to
respondent No.3 to furnish the award records under
the Right to Information Act. An endorsement dated
26.12.2014 was issued intimating that no award had
been passed. However, respondent No.3 once again
sent a notice dated 31.12.2015 under Section 29(2)
calling upon the petitioners to give consent for award
at Rs.65 lakhs per acre. In the meanwhile,
petitioners learnt that item number 1, 2 and 4 of the
schedule property were allotted to respondent No.4.
Petitioners issued a reply on 14.01.2016 declining to
9
accept their proposal and made it clear that despite
requests no award had been passed and the present
market value the property was more than Rs.9.00
crores and thus requested to return the possession
of the schedule property.
(f) That in response to the demand of the petitioners
to return the land, Respondent No.3 issued a notice
dated 24.01.2017 under Section 9 and 10 of the
Land Acquisition Act directing the petitioners'
predecessors in title Sri C Sridharan to appear on
16.02.2017.
(g) Things stood thus during the pendency of present
writ petition respondent No.3 passed a general
award dated 05.02.2018 in respect of property in
Survey Number 117/3 to the extent of 1 acre 13
guntas as against 1 acre 31 guntas. Again another
award has been passed on 22.08.2023 for the
remaining area of 17 guntas. That the general award
has been passed after 11 years from the date of
acquisition and subsequent to the demise of Sri C
10
Sridharan without bringing the legal representatives
on record and no opportunity has been granted to
the petitioners to contest the award. No notice prior
to passing of the general award has been issued to
the petitioners. Hence the writ petition.
4. Statement of Objections dated 14.03.2018 and Additional
Statement of Objections dated 24.3.2025 to the writ petition
has been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 contending that;
(a). That Price Advisory Committee constituted under the
Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner had
determined the compensation at Rs. 65 lakhs per
acre which is inclusive of market value and other
components payable under Section 29(2) of KIAD
Act. That pursuant to the same, Respondent No.3
issued notices on 17.01.2007, as per Annexures-E,
E-1 and E-2 to the Khatedars. The Khatedars had
lodged claim petition and sought for reference to the
Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act. Respondent No.3 had taken possession of the
lands on 29.05.2006 and has thereafter transferred
11
the same to the Respondent No.2 under Section
28(8) of the Act. That since the Khatedars failed to
appear and receive the compensation as determined
by the Price Advisory Committee. Respondent No.3
had issued notice to conduct award inquiry as per
Annexure S and S1 and after collecting the sales
statistics from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar for
relevant period, passed the award on 05.02.2018 by
determining the market value at Rs.11,85,600/- per
acre and granted all statutory benefits.
(b). That the contention of the petitioners that the
market value determined by the authority is not
commensurate with the prevailing market value and
the same is far less is denied. It is contended that
most of the landowners have accepted the
compensation offered by Respondent No.3 as
determined by the Price Advisory Committee and
that the projects have already been implemented by
the allottees around the Petition Schedule property.
12
(c). That the compensation was determined as far back
as in the year 2006 and notices under Section 29(2)
of the Act were issued even as admitted by the
petitioners. Sufficient opportunity of hearing was
given to the Khatedars and the award was passed
thereafter. As such, no irregularity or illegality can
be found in passing of the award.
(d). That the acquisition proceedings are initiated under
the provisions of KIAD Act and not under the Land
Acquisition Act. As such, the provisions of Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
2013 are not applicable. That the delay in passing
the award was only an account of non-cooperation
from the Khatedars/petitioners. The respondent
KIADB has followed all the procedures contemplated
under KIAD Act and the Rules made thereunder. The
allotment made in favor of respondent No.4 is
therefore valid.
13
(e). That the petitioners have no locus to challenge either
the acquisition or the award dated 05.12.2018 as
they have no right over the land in question. That
the petitioners are claiming their rights based on Will
said to have been executed by testator on
19.09.2007 which was registered on 02.08.2008
which is subsequent to issuance of final notification
dated 19.12.2005 and after vesting of the land with
the State free from all encumbrance under Section
28(5) of the KIAD Act.
(f). That wife and children of deceased khatedar are alive
but they are not made parties to the Writ Petition.
That in the absence of the same, petitioners cannot
claim right over the schedule property much less
claim compensation or ask for awarding of the
compensation in their name. As such, the award
dated 05.02.2018 passed by the respondent No.3
and a consequential reference made under Section
31 of the Land Acquisition Act by depositing the
compensation before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru
14
which has been registered as LAC Nos.17/2019,
19/2019 and 27/2019 is in accordance with law.
(g). Petitioners, if they have got any right, title and
interest over the lands, are at liberty to approach the
reference court in pending cases and shall work out
their remedy in accordance with law.
(h). That the Special Land Acquisition Officer being a
revenue officer has no right to decide the rights of
the parties on the basis of the Will much less pass
award in their favor and remedy if any is only to
approach the competent civil court to establish their
alleged rights if any.
(i). That acquisition proceedings pertaining to very same
notification has been upheld by this Court and is
confirmed by the Apex Court and that the Division
Bench of this Court by its order 21-2-2025 passed in
Writ Appeal No.1071 of 2022 in respect of very same
notification has held that the land owners in respect
of the acquisition proceedings initiated prior to
01.01.2014 are not entitled for compensation under
15
Land Acquisition Act 2013 and that since the
acquisition proceedings in the instant case were
initiated prior to 01.01.2014 the relief sought for by
the petitioners cannot be entertained, hence sought
of dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Respondent No.4 filed its statement of objection
contending that;
(a). The predecessor-in-title Sri.C Sridharan had filed his
objection to the acquisition proceedings on
25.05.2004 and upon the consideration of the same
final notification was issued on 19.12.2005.
Subsequently on 17.01.2007 respondent No.3 had
issued notice to Sri.C Sridharan intimating
determination of amount of Rs.65 lakhs per acre as
being the compensation decided by the Board and
called upon him to submit requisite documents to
claim the payment of compensation.
(b). That the said, Sri. C Sridharan during his lifetime
had been issued with notice dated 05.05.2008
intimating the price fixed by the Price Fixation
16
Committee for payment of compensation. That the
said Sri. C Sridharan has not referred to the notices
issued by the respondents or about his response to
the said notices either in the Will or the Codicil as
such the said documents produced by the petitioners
are an afterthought.
(c). Referring to the contents of the Will, it is contended
that Sri. C Sridharan claims to have purchased the
subject land for Sri C. Pramod, partner of M/s.
Gopalan Enterprises. As such, the said transaction
falls within the ambit of provisions of Benami
Transaction (Prohibition) Act 1988. That Sri
Pramod, son of C. Gopalan, is the beneficiary under
the Will. The said transaction is against the public
policy and inconsistent with the established
principles of law. Thus, the petitioners do not derive
any title, interest and right on the subject land.
(d). Smt K. P. Kamalam, wife of Sri. C. Sridharan, is
stated to be the consenting witness to the Will
executed by Sri. C Sridharan. That when the
17
respondent No.2 had issued notice dated
05.05.2008, Sri. C Gopalan claiming to be the power
of attorney holder of Smt. K. P. Kamalam had issued
a reply dated 23.05.2008 stating her disagreement
to the quantum of compensation proposed and the
matter was sought to be referred to civil court for
fixation of fair amount of compensation. That as on
the date of the said reply, Smt. K. P. Kamalam was
not the Khatedar in terms of the Will, which clearly
indicates misleading attempts by the petitioners.
(e). That the allotment of land to this respondent is in
accordance with law following due process after
vesting of the land with the State Government under
Section 28 of the KIAD Act. As such sought for
dismissal of the petition.
6. Sri Phanindra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for learned
counsel for the petitioners adverting to the General Award
dated 05.02.2018 and 22.08.2023 as per Annexures T and U
passed by the Respondent No.3 submitted that ;
18
(a) When original khatedar Sri C Sridharan by his reply
dated 26.03.2007 issued to the notice dated
17.01.2007 had categorically refused and declined
to accept the consent award and had sought for
determination of compensation in accordance with
law, it was incumbent on the part of the
respondent- SLAO to have proceeded in accordance
with Section 29 of the KIAD Act.
(b) That though the respondent authorities were aware
of said Sri. C. Sridharan passing away on 19.10.2007
by bequeathing the petition schedule property in
favour of petitioners and despite the same having
been specifically pleaded in the writ petition, the
respondent-SLAO has proceeded to pass the general
award in the name of Sri. C Sridharan who is dead
person. He submitted that the procedure purported
to have been followed by the respondent authorities
under Section 29 of the KIAD Act is illegal and
therefore the general award requires to be quashed.
19
(c) That if the award had been passed during the
lifetime of Sri. C Sridharan, that is in the year 2007,
he would have had the value of the money. Referring
to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others Vs.
Government of Karnataka and others reported
2025 SCC online SC 20, he submitted that the
respondent authorities cannot be permitted to take
advantage of their own laxity in determining and
disbursing the compensation to the original
Khatedar. That the award admittedly having been
passed after 11 years of issuance of notification, is of
no avail in the absence of the respondent authorities
complying with the constitutional and statutory
mandate of acquiring the land by paying just and fair
compensation. Thus relying upon the aforesaid
judgment of the Apex Court learned Senior Counsel
insisted that the compensation be determined taking
into consideration the present market value of
schedule property.
20
(d) As regards the objections raised by the respondents
about the locus standi of petitioners to maintain the
petition in view of they claiming rights in terms of
Will and Codicil having come into existence after the
acquisition, learned Senior counsel submitted that
Will is a mode of devolution and does not amount to
transfer of property causing any impediment in
respondent authorities considering the petitioners
to be the persons interested in the land subject
matter of acquisition. He referred to the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of S. Ratinam Vs. L S
Mariappan reported in (2007) 6 SCC 724 and
State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra
Kapoor reported in (1997 ) 2 SCC 387. He also
referred to the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Smt. Janaki and others
Vs. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2012 KAR
5017 to justify his contention of petitioners being
legatees are the "persons interested" as
contemplated in Section 9 of the Land Acquisition
Act.
21
(e) He further submitted that there is no inter-se dispute
between the petitioners and the natural heirs of
deceased Sri. C. Sridharan. In any case, should there
be any such issue, he submitted that the petitioners
are willing file any affidavit, consent or undertaking
as may be required from the persons concerned in
the matter.
7. In response Sri. P V Chandrashekar, learned counsel
for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that;
(a). Preliminary Notification was issued on 09.02.2004
and the final notification was issued on 19.12.2005
and the possession of land was taken on 29.05.2006.
That on 08.08. 2006 the Price Advisory Committee
had determined the compensation at Rs.65 lakhs per
acre payable under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act in
one lumpsum, which was not accepted by the
original Khathedar.
(b). That on 05.02.2018 the Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed the General Award under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894. It is contended the delay in
22
passing the award is only due to the various
litigation with the interim orders and resistance from
the landowners. Since the acquisition proceedings
were upheld by this Court, confirmed by the Apex
Court, the allotment were made to various parties
and the general award has been passed.
(c). That certain persons namely Sri. Srinivas and
others filed a Writ Petition in WP No. 5916/2017 and
connected matters seeking quash of acquisition and
for declaration under Section 24(2) of the new Land
Acquisition Act 2013 also subsequent to passing of
the General Award on 05.02.2018 the petitioners
therein sought amendment of writ petition seeking to
quash the general award dated 05.02.2018 and to
pass the award under the new Land Acquisition Act.
That on 01.08.2022 the said writ petition in
W.P.No.5916/2017 and connected petitions were
allowed in part by upholding the acquisition
proceedings. However award dated 05.02.2018
insofar as the lands involved therein was quashed
23
directing the respondent-SLAO to pass the fresh
award under the provisions of the new Land
Acquisition Act 2013.
(d). Respondent-KIADB and the beneficiaries being
aggrieved by the said order filed writ appeals in WA
Nos. 1071 of 2022, 1064 of 2022 and 1072 of 2022
and the allottees also filed writ appeal in WA
No.1110 of 2022 questioning the portion of the order
which directed passing of the award under the new
Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
(e). That by order dated 21.02.2025 the writ appeals
filed by the KIADB at principal Bench and the writ
appeals filed at Dharwad Bench and other identical
appeals and the Writ petition involving the question
of payment of compensation under the new Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 were disposed of by allowing
the writ appeals filed by the KIADB and the
beneficiaries. The writ Petition filed by the landowner
seeking compensation under the new Act were
dismissed.
24
(f). The SLAO passed the award on 05.02.2018 after
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. The
compensation in respect of the land involved in the
present case has already been deposited before the
Reference Court.
(g). It is contended that the petitioners are not entitled
to maintain the Petition as they are claiming their
rights under the Will and Codicil allegedly executed
by the original Khatedar subsequent to acquisition.
That the Revenue Office has no jurisdiction to
determine the rights of the Parties based on Will. As
such seeks for rejection of the said prayer. He relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Anasuya Bai
reported in (2017) 2 SCC 313 and the judgment of
the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sri
Nagendra Singh Vs. Special Deputy
Commissioner Bangalore District reported in
2206 (6) Kar.L.J 391 (FB) in support of his
submissions.
25
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4
supplementing the submission of learned counsel for
respondent-KIADB, submitted that the award having been
passed, compensation having been deposited before the
Reference Court, date of acquisition cannot be shifted without
there being any compelling circumstance.
9. Heard and perused the records. On consideration of facts of
the matter and the submissions of respective learned counsel,
the points that require consideration in this petition are;
(i). Whether the petitioners are entitled to
maintain the present writ petition?
(ii). Whether in law and on the facts of this
case the General Award dated 05.02.2018 and
22.08.2023 passed by the respondent-SLAO is
sustainable?
(iii). Whether petitioners have made out
grounds for shifting of date of acquisition for
the purpose of determination of compensation
from date of issuance of preliminary
notification that is 09.02.2004 to the present
date?
10. There is no dispute that schedule property belonging to
late Sri C Sridharan was sought to acquired in terms of a
preliminary notification dated 09.02.2004 followed by final
notification dated 19.12.2005 issued under Sections 28(1) and
26
28(4) of the KIAD Act, 1966. The said Sri C. Sridharan had
filed his statement of objection on 25.05.2004 seeking to drop
the aforesaid lands from acquisition. However, by notices dated
17.01.2007 issued under section 29(2) of the KIAD Act 1966
as per annexure E to E2 the respondent-SLAO, had offered to
pay Rs.65 lakhs as compensation per acre of land as
determined by the Price Advisory Committee and called upon
said Sri C Sridharan that if he was interested to accept the
same he could produce the records and consent for acquisition
by Agreement. There is also no dispute that in response, said
Sri. C. Sridharan had issued a reply dated 26.03.2007 declining
to accept the offer and had contended that subject lands were
converted from agricultural to non agricultural purposes and
the market value of the land per acre was Rs.4.00 crores and
that if the authority still intended to proceed further with
acquisition, matter could be referred for adjudication on
payment of proper compensation.
11. That the said Sri C. Sridharan stated to have passed away
on 19.10.2007 purportedly bequeathing item number 1 and 2
of the Schedule property in favour of Petitioner No.1 and item
27
number 3 and 4 in favour of petitioner No.2 by executing Will
dated 19.09.2007 and Codicil dated 29.09.2007. Respondent-
SLAO issued yet another notice dated 05.05.2008 under
Section 29(2) reiterating the contents of the earlier notice
dated 17.01.2007, calling upon the said Sri C Sridharan once
again to accept the award of Rs. 65 lakhs per acre and to
submit the documents within 15 days thereafter. In response
to the said notice, wife of said Sri C Sridharan, namely
Smt Kamalam, represented by her power of attorney holder
Sri C Gopalan, issued a reply dated 23.05.2008 declining to
accept the said offer, and reiterating the earlier response dated
26.03.2007 issued by her husband. Father of Petitioner No. 2,
Sri C. Gopalan, who was the brother of deceased Sri. C.
Sridharan, had apparently sought information regarding status
of award if any having been passed in respect to the schedule
property. In response thereof, a letter was issued by the
respondent-SLAO on 22.12.2014 intimating that no award in
respect to the schedule property had been passed. Things
stood thus, the respondent-SLAO, again by notice dated
31.12.2015 issued under Section 29 (2) reiterated the contents
28
of earlier notices. The said notice was again addressed to
Sri C Sridharan, the notified khatedar.
12. Necessary at the juncture to note that in the reply notice
dated 23.05.2008 issued by Smt. Kamalam she had described
herself as "wife of late Sri Sridharan" yet the respondent -SLAO
chose to issue the notice in the name of deceased Sri.
Sridharan unmindful of the fact that he had already passed
away. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the meanwhile had
allotted subject lands in favour of Respondent No.4.
Petitioners claiming to be the legatees in terms of the Will and
Codicil purportedly executed by deceased Sri C Sridharan filed
the present writ petition on 02.02.2017. Admittedly even as on
the date of filing of the Writ Petition, award had not been
passed by the respondent-SLAO.
13. Though deceased Sri C Sridharan in his reply dated
26.03.2007 issued in response to the notice dated 17.01.2007
and thereafter his wife Smt. Kamalam describing herself to be
the wife of late Sri C. Sridharan had issued her reply dated
23.05.2008 in response to the notice dated 05.05.2008 issued
by the respondent -SLAO declining to accept the offer of Rs.65
29
lakhs per acre as compensation and requesting the matter to
be referred for adjudication of compensation, respondent-SLAO
did not take any action as required under law.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer V
Anasuya Bai (2017) 2 SCC 313 at paragraph 18 has clarified
that
"The provisions which is made under
Section 29 of KIAD Act calls for
determination of compensation by
agreement between the State
Government on the one hand and the
land owner who is to be compensated for
the land acquired. On the other hand, in
case no such agreement is arrived at, the
State Government is supposed to refer
the case to the Deputy Commissioner for
determination of amount of compensation
who is required to determine the
compensation as per Section 30 of the
KIAD Act. Section 30 of the KIAD act
provides that for fixing the compensation
the Deputy Commissioner is supposed to
follow the same procedure as prescribed
under old LA Act. Obviously, in that event
after, following the procedure in the old
LA Act, the Deputy Commissioner is
required to pass an award (which is
contemplated under Section 9 of the old
LA Act )"
15. Necessary at the juncture to refer to provisions of Sections
29 and 30 of the KIAD Act, 1966 which read as under;
30
Section 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.
30. Application of Central Act 1 of
1894.
- The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) shall mutatis
mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and
award by the Deputy Commissioner, the
reference to Court, the apportionment of
compensation and the payment of
compensation, in respect of lands acquired
under this Chapter;
16. Relevant also to refer to the Provisions of Section 9, 10 and
11 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, which are as under;
31
9. Notice to persons interested
(1) The Collector shall then cause public notice
to be given at convenient places on or near the
land to be taken, stating that the Government
intends to take possession of the land, and that
claims to compensation for all interests in such
land may be made to him.
(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of
the land so needed, and shall require all persons
interested in the land to appear personally or by
agent before the Collector at a time and place
therein mentioned (such time not being earlier
than fifteen days after the date of publication of the
notice), and to state the nature of their respective
interests in the land and the amount and
particulars of their claims to compensation for such
interests, and their objections (if any) to the
measurements made under section 8. The Collector
may in any case require such statement to be
made in writing and signed by the party or his
agent.
(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the
same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land
and on all such persons known or believed to be
interested therein, or to be entitled to act for
persons so interested, as reside or have agents
authorised to receive service on their behalf, within
the revenue district in which the land is situate.
(4) In case any person so interested resides
elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall
be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him
at his last known residence, address or place of
business and registered under sections 28 and 29
of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898)
10. Power to require and enforce the
making of statements as to names and
interests:
(1) The Collector may also require any such
person to make or deliver to him, at a time and
32
place mentioned (such time not being earlier than
fifteen days after the date of the requisition), a
statement containing, so far as may be practicable,
the name of every other person possessing any
interest in the land or any part thereof as co-
proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee, tenant or
otherwise, and of the nature of such interest, and
of the rents and profits (if any) received or
receivable on account thereof for three years next
preceding the date of the statement.
(2) Every person required to make or deliver a
statement under this section or section 9 shall be
deemed to be legally bound to do so within the
meaning of sections 175 and 176 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).Enquiry into
measurements, value and claims, and award by the
Collector.
11. Enquiry and award by Collector
(1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to
which the enquiry has been adjourned, the
Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection
(if any) which any person interested has stated
pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the
measurements made under section 8, and into the
value of the land [at the date of the publication of
the notification under section 4, sub-section (1),
and into the respective interest of the persons
claiming the compensation and shall make an
award under his hand of-
(i)the true area of the land;
(ii)the compensation which in his opinion
should be allowed for the land; and
(iii)the apportionment of the said compensation
among all the persons known or believed to be
interested in the land, of whom, or of whose
claims, he has information, whether or not they
have respectively appeared before him:
[Provided that no award shall be made by the
Collector under this sub-section without the
33
previous approval of the appropriate Government
or of such officer as the appropriate Government
may authorise in this behalf: Provided further that
it shall be competent for the appropriate
Government to direct that the Collector may make
such award without such approval in such class of
cases as the appropriate Government may specify
in this behalf.] [Inserted by Act 38 of 1923, Section
5.]
(2) [Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings,
the Collector is satisfied that all the persons
interested in the land who appeared before him
have agreed in writing on the matters to be
included in the award of the Collector in the form
prescribed by rules made by the appropriate
Government, he may, without making further
enquiry, make an award according to the terms of
such agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any
land under sub-section (2) shall not in any way
affect the determination of compensation in respect
of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in
accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement
made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to
registration under that Act.]
17. Thus, once the Khatedar or the legal representative had
declined the offer for consent agreement, it was incumbent on
the part of the respondent-SLAO to have issued notice to the
Khatedar or his representatives calling upon him/them to
participate in the inquiry for the purpose of determination of
34
the compensation amount which is not done in the instant
case.
18. General Award dated 05.02.2018 along with other
documents has been produced by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3
along with the memo dated 11.07.2022. Perusal of the general
award would indicate that there has been no inquiry
proceedings conducted in respect of the schedule property.
Paragraph 6 at page 17 of the general award indicate that
petitions in writ Petition No. 52413-52416-2016 filed by one J.
Shivashankar and 6 others in respect of lands in Survey. No.
117/33 situated at Amani Bendanduru Khane village were
pending consideration and that this Court by order dated
05.10.2016 had directed both the parties to maintain status
quo and the said interim order had been extended from time to
time. Thus indicating no inquiry has been conducted in respect
of the petition schedule property. However, at page 21 of the
general award, while determining the compensation, the
respondent-SLAO has taken the value of the lands in
Kariammana Agrahara village at Rs. 4.00 lakhs per acr and
Amani Benandurukhane village at Rs. 7,45,600/ per acre and
35
at Kadubisinahalli at Rs. 24,11,260/- per acre. Thereafter
taking average of land value of the aforesaid three villages
determined the compensation at Rs.11,85,600/- to be the
market value of the land payable to the notified khatedar with
other statutory benefits provided under the Act .
19. Though learned counsel for the Respondent-KIADB sought
to contend that the delay in passing the award was only due to
various litigations with the interim orders and the resistance of
the landowners, and has given the details of the petitions
which were filed and disposed of, said submission cannot be
countenanced for the reason even when the general award
was passed on 05.02.2018, the present writ petition was
pending consideration. As such if the respondent- SLAO
intended to pass the general award he could well have passed
the same in accordance with law much prior to filing of the
writ petition, that is, soon after the deceased Sri C Sridharan
had indicated his unwillingness to accept the consent award
and had sought for reference of the matter by his reply dated
26.03.2007. This is as far back as in the year 2007. Even
thereafter, when the second notice was issued, his wife, Smt.
36
Kamalam had also indicated her inclination to seek
determination of the compensation in accordance with law. The
respondent authorities not having done the same, cannot now
contend that the delay in passing the award was due to the
pendency of the proceedings, which submission cannot be
countenanced.
20. Necessary also to note that since the writ petition is
pending consideration nothing prevented the Respondent
authorities to inform this Court regarding passing of the
general award date 05.02.2018. Nothing prevented the
Respondent authorities to inform either the petitioners or the
wife of the deceased Sri. C Shridharan regarding the process of
passing the general award. No notice as required under Section
29(3) of the KIAD Act is served on the legal representatives of
the deceased Khatedar. No explanation is offered regarding
non compliance of provisions of Section 29(3) though the
respondent authorities are completely aware of petitioners
claiming their rights under the purported Will and Codicil and
the death of Sri C Shridaran.
37
21. Acquisition is of the year 2004-2005. Notice under Section
29(2) has been issued on 17.01.2007 and 05.05.2008. General
award has been passed on 05.02.2018 taking the value of the
acquired land as existed during the year 2004. The reasons for
delay in passing the award as sought to be made out by the
respondent authorities having negated as above, the question
therefore is whether the value taken by the respondent-KIADB
of the acquired land as existed during the year 2004 is
sustainable? Relevant at this juncture to refer to the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph
Vaz and others (Supra) involving postponement of date of
Preliminary Notification from 29th January 2003 to the year
2011, referring to its various earlier judgments on the question
of shifting the date of preliminary notification for the purpose
of awarding just and fair compensation the Apex Court
recognising its power under Articles 32/142 and of the High
Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution at paragraphs 48
to 57 has held as under:
''48. It cannot be gainsaid that the appellants
herein have been deprived of their legitimate
dues for almost 22 years ago. It can also not be
controverted that money is what money
buys. The value of money is based on the idea
38
that money can be invested to earn a return,
and that the purchasing power of money
decreases over time due to inflation. What the
appellants herein could have bought with the
compensation in 2003 cannot do in 2025. It is,
therefore, of utmost importance that the
determination of the award and disbursal of
compensation in case of acquisition of land
should be made with promptitude.
49. We find that in the present case, the
appellants were required to knock at the doors
of the courts on number of occasions during the
period of last twenty-two years. The appellants
have been deprived of their property without
paying any compensation for the same in the
said period of last twenty-two years. As already
discussed hereinabove, the appellants had
purchased the plots in question for construction
of residential houses. Not only have they not
been able to construct, but they have also not
been even paid any compensation for the
same. As discussed hereinabove, though Right
to Property is no more a fundamental right, in
view of the provisions of Article 300-A of
the Constitution of India, it is a constitutional
right. A person cannot be deprived of his
property without him being paid adequate
compensation in accordance with law for the
same.
50. In the present case, it can clearly be seen
that there is no delay which can be attributed
to the appellants in not getting compensation,
but it was on account of the lethargic attitude
of the officers of the State/KIADB that the
appellants were deprived of compensation.
51. Only after the notices were issued in the
contempt proceedings, the compensation was
determined by the SLAO on 22nd April 2019
taking guideline values prevailing in the year
2011 for determining the market value of the
acquired land.
39
52. No doubt that as already observed by us
hereinabove, we do not find any error in the
approach adopted by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court in holding that the SLAO
could not have shifted the date and it could
have been done only by this Court in exercise
of powers under Article 32/142 of
the Constitution of India or by the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
However, the learned Single Judge of the High
Court instead of relegating the appellants to
again go through the rigors of determination by
SLAO, ought to have exercised powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution to do complete
justice. Even the Division Bench of the High
Court on a hyper technical ground has non-
suited the appellants.
53. In that view of the matter, we find that it is
a fit case wherein this Court in exercise of its
powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution should direct shifting of the
date for determination of the market value of
the land in question of the appellants.
54. If the compensation to be awarded at the
market value as of the year 2003 is permitted,
it would amount to permitting a travesty of
justice and making the constitutional provisions
under Article 300-A a mockery.
55. Since the State/KIADB was in deep slumber
from 2003 to 2019 and acted for the first time
only after the notices were issued in contempt
proceedings, we find that though SLAO had no
power to shift the date for determination of
market value, he had rightly done so. The
learned Single Judge of the High Court also
does not say that the determination of
compensation to be awarded by shifting of the
date by the SLAO to that of 2011 was unjust
but only sets aside the award on the ground
that SLAO had no jurisdiction to do so.
56. There is another reason for doing so. If on
account of the inordinate delay in paying the
40
compensation and thereby depriving the
constitutional right to the appellants under
Article 300-A, the land acquisition proceedings
are quashed, the only recourse available to the
State/KIADB in order to save the project will be
to now issue a fresh acquisition notification by
invoking the provisions as applicable under the
2013 LA Act which would entail huge
expenditure to the public exchequer.
57. We, therefore, in exercise of power of this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, find it appropriate in the interest of
justice that the SLAO be directed to determine
the compensation to be awarded to the
appellants herein on the basis of the market
value prevailing as on 22nd April 2019. The
appellants shall also be entitled to all the
statutory benefits as are available to them
under the 1894 LA Act. This shall be without
prejudice to the rights/contentions of either
party, in case they make a reference before an
appellate authority, if they are so aggrieved by
the fresh determination of compensation by the
SLAO. We further clarify that, any other award
which may have been passed pursuant to the
directions of the learned Single Judge of the
High Court shall stand nullified by this
judgment.''
22. Even in the instant case no fault can be attributed either on
the petitioners or the original Khatedar for the delay in
respondent authorities proceeding to pass the award in
accordance with law. The land owner cannot be deprived of
their legitimate entitlement for just and fair compensation.
Therefore the this Court is of the considered view that the date
41
of preliminary notification for the purpose of determination and
awarding just and fair compensation in the instant case is
required to be shifted to the date on which the impugned
general award has been passed.
23. The other contentions urged by learned counsel for the
Respondent-KIADB as well as Respondent No.4- the allottee is
that the petitioners being the legatees under the purported Will
dated 19.09.2007 and the Codicil Dated 29.09.2007 which
were executed subsequent to issuance of the acquisition
notifications were not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition
and that in the light of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Sri Nagendra Singh V. Special Deputy
Commissioner Bangalore District 2206(6) Kar.L.J 391
(FB) to contend that mutation on the basis of the Will is not
permissible and that the Revenue Officer is not competent to
decide the rights of the parties under the Will, necessary at this
juncture to note that for the purpose of Sections 3(b) and 9(3)
of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 term "person interested" has
been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the
case of Smt Janaki and others (supra) wherein at paragraph
42
10 has held that "Even non-owner of a property can
legitimately claim compensation, if he has legally
recognisable interest in the land."
24. That apart, learned Senior counsel for petitioner on
instruction, categorically submitted that there is no dispute
between the petitioners and the natural heirs of deceased Sri C
Sridharan, the original Khatedhar, and that should there be
any such dispute, they would undertake to file such affidavit or
undertaking as may be required under law. Reliance placed on
by the learned counsel for respondent-KIADB on the judgment
of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of C N Nagendra
Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the present case inasmuch as even as on this date there
appears to be no dispute between the petitioners who are
claiming to the legatees under the Will and Smt. Kamalam who
is admittedly the wife of the Khatedar. That apart it is always
open for the respondent authorities to issue notice to all the
persons interested including the natural heirs of the deceased
original Khatedar and ascertain and satisfy regarding the
genuineness of the claim to be made for the compensation,
43
particularly now that all facts are placed before this Court and
to the knowledge of the respondent authorities. Respondent
authorities cannot be allowed shirk away for performing their
constitutional and statutory obligation of determination and
payment of just and fair compensation on this specious
ground.
25. The issue of determination of dispute would arise when the
petitioners or the natural heirs were called upon to file their
claim statements/objection as the case may be in the manner
known to law. Without even initiating such steps the
respondent authorities cannot premonish about a non-existent
dispute. As such, the said contention is rejected.
26. Points raised are answered accordingly.
27. In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis,
following:
ORDER
(i). Writ Petition is allowed in part;
(ii). Writ petition to the extent seeking quashing of preliminary notification dated 09.2.2004 and final notification dated 19.12.2005 as per Annexures "B" and 44 "D" and quashing of allotment letter dated 10.03.2015 and possession certificate dated 25.01.2016 as per Annexures 'Q" and "R" is rejected.
(iii). The impugned General Award dated 05.02.2018 and 22.08.2023 as per Annexures "T" and "U" to the extent of subject land are quashed.
(iv). Since the Parties are represented by their respective counsel requirement of the Respondent-SLAO issuing notice to them as required under the provision of Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is dispensed with. Petitioners as well as the natural legal heirs of the deceased Sri C.Sridharan are at liberty to file their objections/representation before the Respondent-SLAO on or before 10.07.2025.
(v) The Respondent-SLAO shall after consideration of such Objections/ representation pass a fresh award within a period of two months thereafter taking into consideration the market value of the property as on 05.02.2018.
(v). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the genuineness or authenticity of the claim made by the Petitioners claiming to be the legatees under the Will dated 19.09.2007 and the Codicil Dated 29.09.2007 purported to have been executed by deceased Sri Sridharan during his life time. It open for the petitioners to establish and satisfy their right before 45 Respondent- SLAO in furtherance to submission made by the learned Senior counsel by obtaining such documents from the natural heirs of the deceased Sri Sridharan or by keeping them personally present during the enquiry to the satisfaction of the Respondent-SLAO strictly in accordance with law.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN