Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mohammed Shafeeq on 7 July, 2017
Author: Raghvendra S.Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
Review Petition No.229/2017
In Writ Petition No.201027/2015 (LB-RES)
C/w.
Review Petition No.230/2017 and
Review Petition No.269/2017
In
Writ Petition Nos.200755-200756/2015 (LB-RES) ,
Review Petition No.231/2017
And
Review Petition Nos.240-260/2017
In
Writ Petition Nos.207059 & 207122/2014 c/w
Writ Petition Nos.207177-207182/2014, 201253-201257/2015,
201334/2015,200660/2016, 200661/2016, 201429/2016,
202153-202157/2016 (LB-RES)
&
Review Petition No.232/2017
And
Review Petition Nos.261-268/2017
In
Writ Petition No.205692/2015 C/w
Writ Petition Nos.205763-764/2014, 201634-635/2015,
207520/2014, 202266/2016, 201523/2016
& 202724/2016 (LB-RES)
2
RP.No.229/2017 :
Between :
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The State of Karnataka
Housing & Urban Development Authority,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Vijaypur District,
Opposite City Central Bus Stand,
Vijaypur. ...Petitioners
(By Sri A. S. Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General a/w
Sri D. Nagaraj, AGA)
And :
1. Mohammed Shafeeq
S/o. Sofilal Bangi,
Aged about 49 years,
Occ:Business,
R/o. Opp. Jumma Masjid,
Vijaypur.
2. The Commissioner
City Municipal Corporation,
Gandhi Chowk,
Vijaypur. ...Respondents
This Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Articles 226
3
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to review the order
dated 22.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.201027/2015 (LB-RES), on the
file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench and
etc.
In Review Petition No.230/2017 and
Review Petition No.269/2017
Between :
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Vijaypur District,
Opposite City Central Bus Stand,
Vijaypur. ...Petitioners
(By Sri A. S. Ponnanna, AAG a/w
Sri D. Nagaraj, AGA)
And :
1. Mohan
S/o. Venkatesh Kulkarni,
Aged about 74 years,
Occ: Doctor, R/o. Main Road,
M. G. Road, Vijaypur.
2. The Commissioner
City Municipal Corporation,
Gandhi Chowk,
Vijaypur. ...Respondents
4
These Review Petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to review the order
dated 20.07.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.200755-200756/2015
(LB-RES), on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench and etc.
In Review Petition No.231/2017
And Review Petition Nos.240-260/201
Between :
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Vijayapur District,
Opposite City Central Bus Stand,
Bijapur. ...Petitioners
(By Sri A. S. Ponnanna, AAG a/w
Sri D. Nagaraj, AGA)
And :
1. Anand
S/o. Venkatesh Joshi,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o. Raghavendra Chawl,
M. G. Road,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.Nos.207059 & 207122/2014)
5
2. Vijay
S/o. Sitaramcharya Jahagirdar,
Aged about 71 years,
R/o. M. G. Road / Main Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207177-207182/2014)
3. Gopal
S/o. Ramrao Bagalkotkar,
Aged about 55 years
R/o. M. G. Road / Main Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207177-207182/2014)
4. Basavaraj @ Basappa
S/o. Sidarayappa Savalgi,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o. M. G. Road / Main Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207177-207182/2014)
5. Sambahaji
S/o. Shamrao Langoti,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o. M. G. Road / Main Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207177-207182/2014)
6. Indumati
W/o. Arajunrao Chavan,
Aged about 65 years,
R/o. M. G. Road / Main Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207177-207182/2014)
7. Sanjay
S/o. Shivaji Jadhav,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o. M. G. Road / Main Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207177-207182/2014)
8. Surendra
S/o. Siddram Kembhavi,
Aged 40 years,
Occ: Medical Professional,
R/o: Shivaji Circle,
M. G. Road,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.Nos.201253-201257/2015)
6
9. Rakesh
S/o. Srinivasarao Shetty,
Aged 49 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o: Premsri Nilay,
Ear Sasnoor Hospital,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.Nos.201253-201257/2015)
10. Irfan
S/o. Bashasab sanglikar,
Aged 35 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o: Opp. Laxmi Temple,
M. G. Road,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.Nos.201253-201257/2015)
11. Arun
S/o. Gopalrao Kembhavi,
Aged 71 years,
Occ: Retired,
R/o: Opp. Laxmi Temple,
M. G. Road,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.Nos.201253-201257/2015)
12. Ambalapadi Mahabala
S/o. Ramanna Shetty,
Aged 75 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o: Opp. Laxmi Temple,
M. G. Road,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.Nos.201253-201257/2015)
13. Anita Mallappa Nidoni
W/o. Mallappa Nidoni,
Through her Constituted Attorney,
Mr. Mallappa Sadashivappa Nidoni)
Aged 54 years,
Behind Anand Talkies,
Kalika Road, Sindagi,
District Vijaypur. (in W.P.No.201334/2015)
14. Jabbar Nihal Wati Altaf
Aged Major,
R/o. CTS No.410/B,
7
Ward No.9,
Basaveshwar Circle,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.No.200660/2016)
15. Wati Mohammad Sayeed
S/o. Sayeed Wati Altaf Mohammad,
Aged 25 years,
R/o. CTS No.410/B,
Ward No.9,
Basaveshwar Circle,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.No.200661/2016)
16. Ramesh
S/o. Bhaurao Kharande,
Aged about 79 years,
Occ: Business,
Resident of Shantiveer Nagar,
Managoli Road, Ibrahimpur,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.No.201429/2016)
17. Satish
S/o. Ramrao Bagalkotkar,
Aged about 54 years,
Occ: Business,
Resident of Bagalkotkar Chawl,
M. G. Road,
Vijayapur. (in W.P.Nos.202153-202157/2016 &
W.P. Nos.202317-202320/2016)
18. Narasimha
S/o. Krishnarao Kulkarni,
Aged about 82 years,
Occ: Retired,
Resident of Aaradhana Nilaya,
Near Darbar High School,
Behind SBI, Station Road,
Vijayapur. (in W.P.Nos.202153-202157/2016 &
W.P. Nos.202317-202320/2016)
19. Basir
S/o. Ahmed Sutar,
Aged about 63 years,
Occ: Business,
Resident of 462,
8
M. G. Road,
Vijayapur. (in W.P.Nos.202153-202157/2016 &
W.P. Nos.202317-202320/2016)
20. Mahesh
S/o. Gangadhar Hiredesai,
Aged about 56 years,
Occ: Business,
Resident of Near Madhula Maruti Temple,
M. G. Road,
Vijayapur. (in W.P.Nos.202153-202157/2016 &
W.P. Nos.202317-202320/2016)
21. Umesh
S/o. Gangadhar Hiredesai,
Aged about 51 years,
Occ: Business,
Resident of Near Madhula Maruti Temple,
M. G. Road,
Vijayapur. (in W.P.Nos.202153-202157/2016 &
W.P. Nos.202317-202320/2016)
22. The Commissioner
City Municipal Corporation,
Gandhi Chowk,
Vijaypur. (In all the Writ Petitions)
...Respondents
These Review Petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to review the order
dated 20.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.207059 &
207122/2014 c/w Writ Petition Nos.207177-207182/2014, 201253-
201257/2015, 201334/2015, 200660/2016, 200661/2016,
201429/2016, 202153-202157/2016 (LB-RES), on the file of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench and etc.
In Review Petition No.232/2017
And Review Petition Nos.261-268/2017
Between :
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its
9
Principal Secretary,
Department of Municipal Administration,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
2. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
Vikasa Soudha,
Bangalore.
3. The Deputy Commissioner
Opposite City Central Bus Stand,
Bijapur. ...Petitioners
(By Sri A. S. Ponnanna, AAG a/w
Sri D. Nagaraj, AGA)
And :
1. Sri Rajendra Builders
( A Partnership Firm
Regd. Under the Provisions of the
Partnership Act)
HO & REGD Office at VGK Complex,
M. G. Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.No.205692/2015)
Represented by its Partner
Vikas,
S/o. Chandrakant Guttedar,
Aged about 31 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o. VKG Complex,
M. G. Road,
Bijapura.
2. Kantilal
S/o. Khetshi Patidar,
Aged about 53 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o. Opp. Alankar Talkies,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.205763-764/2014)
10
3. Basavantrao
S/o. Vithalrao Patil,
Aged about 69 years,
Occ: Legal Practioner,
R/o. Opp. Darbar Galli,
Bagalkot Cross,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.Nos.201634-20635/2015)
4. Shree Jaya Hotels &
Complexes Pvt. Ltd.,
(Pvt. Company Regd. Under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956)
HO & Regd. Office At Jayashree Talkies,
Annexe, M. G. Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207520/2014 & 201977/2015)
Represented by its Managing Director
Manohar,
S/o. Bhalachandra Joshi,
Aged about 84 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o. Seeta Sadan, Godbole Mala,
Bijapur.
5. Dr. Srikrishna
S/o. Ramarao Bagalkotkar,
Aged about 62 years,
Occ: Medical Practioner,
R/o. Opp. Laxmi Temple / Police Lines,
Bagalkotkar House,
M. G. Road,
Bijapur. (in W.P.Nos.207520/2014 & 201977/2015)
6. Dilip
S/o. Govind Chhatre,
Aged about 59 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o. New Chhatre House,
New Vithal Mandir Cross Road,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.No.202266/2016 &
W.P. Nos.202342-202343/2016)
11
7. Pralhad
S/o. Shamarao Havaldar,
Aged about 63 years,
Occ: Legal Practioner,
R/o.P.No.49, Ajarekar Chawl,
Meenaxi Chowk,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.No.201523/2016)
8. Sanjay
S/o. Govind Chhatre,
Aged about 54 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o. New Chhatre House,
New Vithal Mandir Cross Road,
Vijaypur. (in W.P.No.202724/2016)
9. The Commissioner
City Municipal Corporation,
Gandhi Chowk,
Vijaypur. (In all the Writ Petitions)
...Respondents
These Review Petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to review the order
dated 22.07.2016 passed in Writ Petition Nos.205692/2015 C/w
205763-205764/2014, 201634-201635/2015, 207520/2014,
202266/2016, 201523/2016 & 202724/2016 (LB-RES), on the file of
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench and etc.
These Review Petitions coming on for Orders this day (through
Video Conference), the Court made the following :
ORDER
The State has filed the present Review Petition No.229/2017, against the order dated 22.7.2016, passed in Writ Petition No.201027/2015, Review Petition Nos.230 & 12 269/2017, against the order dated 20.7.2016, passed in Writ Petition Nos.200755-756/2015, Review Petition Nos.231 & 240-260/2017, against the order dated 20.7.2016, passed in Writ Petition Nos.207059 & 207122/2014 & connected matters, and Review Petition Nos.232 & 261-268/2017, against the order dated 22.7.2016, passed in Writ Petition No.205692/2015 & connected matters.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the City Municiapal Council, Vijayapura, had decided to widen the M.G.Road, in Vijayapura. However, without acquiring the properties of the respondents-petitioners, their properties were not only destroyed, but were also forcibly acquired by the City Municipal Council. For the wrongs done, the respondents- petitioners are running from pillar to post, hoping that they would be compensated for the property that was forcefully acquired by the City Municipal Council. Having failed in all their attempts, they filed series of writ petitions before this Court. By the order dated 9.6.2016, this Court had directed the respondents-petitioners, and the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura, to negotiate the compensation that is likely to be 13 paid to the respondents-petitioners. After due negotiations, between the parties, the consent terms were drawn, which were submitted before this Court. On the basis of the said consent terms, this Court passed the order dated 22.7.2016. It is against this order that the State has filed this Review Petition.
3. Mr. A. S. Ponnanna, the learned Addl.Advocate General for the State, submits that the State was required to determine the compensation on the basis of Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (`the Act' for short). According to the State, the compensation has to be determined on the basis of the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. However, the market value agreed by the Deputy Commissioner is bit more than the market value of the property as specified in the India Stamp Act.
Secondly, the commitment made by the Deputy Commissioner would burden the State exchequer to a great extent. The Deputy Commissioner should have taken the 14 consent of the State before making the commitment before this Court. However, he had failed to do so. Therefore, the order dated 22.7.2016, deserves to be reviewed by this Court.
4. Heard the learned Addl.Advocate General, and perused the order.
Undoubtedly, the order has been passed by this Court on the basis of the consent, and the compromise entered between the respondents-petitioners and the State. Although the learned Addl.Advocate General has emphasized the determination of compensation on the basis of Section 26 of the Act, however, the mandate of Section 28 of the Act cannot be ignored. Section 28 of the Act is as under :
" Section 28 : Parameters to be considered by Collector in determination of award.- In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Collector shall take into consideration -
15firstly, the market value as determined under Section 26 and the award amount in accordance with the First and Second Schedules;
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops and trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change;
16
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 19 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land; and seventhly, any other ground which may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected families."
A bare perusal of Section 28 of the Act clearly reveals that it deals with the parameters to be considered by the Collector in determining the award. Most importantly, Clause- seventhly clearly reveals that the Collector shall consider "any other ground" which may be " in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial to the affected parties". (emphasis supplied). It is keeping in mind the beneficial provision contained in Clause-seventhly of Section 28 of the Act, and keeping in mind that the properties belonging to the respondents-petitioners were forcefully acquired, and clearly in violation of law, by the order dated 23.6.2016, this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to keep in mind Clause-seventhly of Section 28 of the Act, while negotiating a settlement with the respondents- 17 petitioners. For, admittedly, the City Municipal Council had taken over the properties of the respondents-petitioners blatantly in violation of law. Therefore, the respondents- petitioners were deprived both of their hearth and home, and their livelihood. Moreover, they were forced to run from pillar to post for two long year. The misfortune and the agony suffered by the respondents-petitioners, and their families, needed to be compensated by the State. It is in this context that this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to keep in mind Clause-seventhly of Section 28 of the Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Addl.Advocate General that the compensation needs to be determined only on the basis of the market value of the property, is belied by Clause-seventhly of Section 28 of the Act. Since Clause-seventhly of Section 28 of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation, it needs to be applied as liberally as possible, especially considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. Even if the arguments raised by the learned Addl.Advocate General is to be accepted that the market value 18 of the property is about Rs.3,900/- per sq.ft., the fact remains that, according to the consent terms, keeping in mind the applicability of Clause-seventhly of Section 28 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner had agreed that the common base rate would be Rs.4,950/- per sq.ft. of the land for those properties which are situated between Sri Basaweshwar Circle to Tripurasundari Circle, and Rs.4,750/- per sq.ft. of the land for those properties which are situated between Tripurasundari Circle to Shivaji Cirlce. Even if the compensation price is slightly above Rs.3,900/-, the compensation amount has been increased by the Deputy Commissioner keeping in mind the sufferings undertaken by the respondents-petitioners, and keeping in mind that this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to determine the compensation in light of Clause-seventhly of Section 28 of the Act.
6. The learned Addl.Advocate General has also emphasized on the fact that the Deputy Commissioner had made a commitment in the Court without seeking the consent of the State. However, in the latter part of the order dated 22nd July 2016, namely in Para-29, this Court had also 19 requested the State to walk an extra mile in order to assuage to the feeling of the respondents-petitioners. This Court had clearly pointed out that considering the fact that the City Municipal Council had forcefully acquired the property, considering the fact that such highhandedness on the part of the City Municipal Council would undermine the faith of the people, both in the Rule of Law, and in the authority of the State, considering the fact that good governance requires that the welfare of the people should be looked after by the State, in light of these factors, this Court had hoped that the Government would shell out the extra amount which is needed for payment of compensation to the respondents-petitioners. Similarly, in order to protect the interest of the State, in future, this Court had made it amply clear that the order of this Court is restricted only to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and it would not form a precedent for any future dispute that may arise between the State, and the people, in any other cases dealing with the acquisition of property.
20
7. Therefore, the State is certainly not justified in blaming the Deputy Commissioner in not seeking its consent prior to making the commitment before the Court. In fact, once a request has been made by this Court, that too, an order passed on the basis of a compromise reached between the State and the respondents-petitioners, this Court continues to hope that the State would understand the request made by this Court.
Since the order has been passed on the basis of the consent of the parties, since there is no error apparent on the face of the record, the Review Petitions are devoid of merit. They are, hereby, dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the Review Petitions the application, IA.2/2017, filed for stay in these Review Petitions, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *bk/-