Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

l. That the land owner in connivance with the KIADB officials knowing fully well that his proposal would go through had applied and obtained orders of conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose and accordingly filed writ petition in W.P.No.12699/2021 and obtained the order dated 21.10.2022 directing the respondent authorities to pass fresh award treating his land as converted land.

m. That this Court in the aforesaid order dated 21.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.12699/2021 had directed to notify and hear MRPL before passing any award. A copy of the said order was furnished by SLAO to MRPL vide letter dated 13.12.2022 seeking its opinion. MRPL by its letter dated 20.12.2022 sought details in relation to approximate rate per acre of converted land and if it was possible MRPL to forfeit land to an extent of 49.87 acres from acquisition process. In response, MRPL received letter dated 23.12.2022 from KIADB stating the cost of lands could be around 55.73 Crores if treated as converted lands. As the rate fixed by the District Administration was at Rs.80 lakhs per acre which was disbursed to all eligible land owners, MRPL submitted that it was not in agreement to pay higher compensation. Hence, sought for denotification of land to an extent of 49.87 acres and objected for passing of fresh award by its letter dated 04.01.2023. As MRPL did not receive any reply to said letter it again addressed another letter dated 22.03.2023 seeking confirmation of denotification of said lands. 

      g.     In the general award dated 18.11.2020

produced      in   the      contempt      proceeding       in

CCC No.174/2020 the compensation in respect of the land belonged to the land owners were fixed considering them to be the agricultural lands constraining filing of writ petition in W.P.No.12699/2021. This Court directed the respondent to fix the compensation to an extent of 49.925 acres considering it as converted lands.

h. The SLAO pursuant to the direction issued in the writ petition No. 12699/2021 had issued letter dated 13.12.2022 to the MRPL seeking its opinion regarding fixation of compensation intimating the order passed in the said writ petition. In response MRPL had issued a reply dated 4.1.2023 indicating it would not be willing to pay higher compensation. Nowhere in the said letter did MRPL alleged that the subject lands belonging to the land owners were not viable for the project. But it only indicated that if the compensation was fixed more than 80 lakhs per acre it would not pay such higher compensation. Even after passing of the award dated 7.7.2023 MRPL by his letter dated 03.09.2023 expressed its unwillingness to pay higher compensation. Thus, the only grouse of the MRPL was with regard to higher compensation. No ground of any nature made regarding fraud or land being not viable for the project. Yet again by letter dated 20.09.2023 MRPL had reiterated its unwillingness to pay the higher rate of compensation and nothing else.

40. There is no explanation of any nature whatsoever regarding MRPL not choosing to participate in the process of passing fresh award despite being notified by SLAO. No explanation regarding MRPL not taking any measures in safeguarding its own interest. After all the thrust of the MRPL is protecting public exchequer from being saddled with additional financial burden. Further it is also the case of MRPL that affected persons, who are going to be rehabilitated in the subject lands, have made representations to MRPL insisting it not to take the subject lands. If such representations were received by MRPL, why did it not take any action or atleast mention the same in its communications referred to above is not explained. A larger question also required to be answered by MRPL as to how did it not notice atleast for over six years from the date of preliminary notification, that subject lands getting water logged during rainy season. Gurupura river flowing by southern side of the subject land and the same getting flooded year after year during the rainy season as contended by MRPL cannot be a matter of suppression or false representation. MRPL cannot be heard to be naïve of these aspects of the matter which is admittedly located just within 4 to 5 kilometers away from the subject land.

ordinate Bench of this Court while passing order dated 21.10.2022 in W.P.No.12699/2021 to the respondent- KIADB/SLAO to provide an opportunity of hearing to MRPL before passing the fresh award. This point has been addressed while referring to the communication dated 13.12.2022 produced at Annexure-H issued by SLAO to MRPL and subsequent communications issued by MRPL dated 20.12.2022, 04.01.2023 and 22.03.2023 produced at Annexures J, K and L which are extracted hereinabove. MRPL was supplied with the order passed by this Court dated 21.10.2022 in W.P.No.12699/2021 by SLAO who had called upon MRPL for its response. MRPL for the reasons best known merely restricted itself to mere issuing the response as found at Annexures J, K and L above. There was no impediment of any nature whatsoever for MRPL to have participated itself in the process of passing of the award by SLAO on 07.07.2023 or to have challenged the same in the manner specifically provided under relevant law before the competent authority. In view of the material available on record MRPL cannot be heard to say that it did not have an opportunity to participate in the award proceedings or it was deprived of its right to be heard. In that view of the matter MRPL cannot now seek to implead in the writ petition challenging the quantum of compensation awarded. In any event the writ petition of land owners is only seeking direction to the respondent authorities to disburse the amount already determined. There is no question of assessing or determining the process of passing the award involved in the writ petition.