S C GOKARNA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.48823 OF 2019 ( LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

S.C. GOKARNA S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA S.N., AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO. 006, RAHEJA CHAMBERS MUSEUM ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH PATIL.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

VIKASA SOUDHA

DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

2 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

EXECUTIVE MEMBER , CEO AND EM 4TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA

RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

KIADB METRO NO 14/3 ARAVINDA BHAVANA NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

4 . BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR B M T C COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR K H ROAD

2 SHANTHINAGARA BENGALURU – 560 027.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

NEW DELHI

BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT.

DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX

C.R. ROAD, NO.1

QUEENS ROAD

BANGALORE – 560 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA .N. HCGP FOR R-1 SRI. B.B.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI. N.N. HARISH, ADVOCATE R-4 SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI, FOR R-5 SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE GENERAL AWARD DATED: 21.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 10.409,49 SQ MTS- ANNEXURE- O AND ETC.

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the Award notice no. KIADB/METRO/BHU SWA/ R6-DP-1A/ 2019-20 dated 21.06.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of land measuring 10,409.49 sq.mtrs ANNEXURE – O. b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the general award no. KIADB/METRO/BHU SWA/DP-1A/2018-19 Amended as per the order or this Hon’ble Court dated: 01.12.2022

3 dated 18.05.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of land measuring 10,409.49 sq.mtrs ANNEXURE – P. c) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the award notice no KIADB/METRO/BHU SWA/R-6-DP-1B/2019 -20 dated 26.07.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of land measuring 4641.46 sq.mtrs ANNEXURE – Q. d) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the General Award no. KIADB/METRO/BHU SWA/ DP- 1B/2019-20 dated 31.05.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of land measuring 4641.46 sq.mtrs ANNEXURE – R; e) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the award notice no. KIADB/METRO/BHU SWA/DP-1B/2019-20 dated 03.07.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of land measuring 2663.12 sq.mtrs ANNEXURE – S; f) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order and quash the General Award no. KIADB/METRO/BHU SWA/ DP-1/B/2-19-20 dated 31.05.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the land measuring 2663.12 sq.mtrs ANNEXURE -T; g) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order and direct the 3rd respondent to pass award in accordance with provisions of Right to Fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition , Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also to take note of the report submitted by the land committee appointed by the 4th respondent , while passing the general award under the Act. h) Hold that the respondents are not entitled to deduct the tax at source in view of the section

4 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013, and direct the 3rd Respondent to pay full award amount without deducting any tax; i) Pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of Justice and Equity. j) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order and direct the Respondents No. 5 and 6 to reimburse to petitioner the 20% TDS amount relieved from KIADB for and on behalf of petitioner in respect of compensation awarded against the name of petitioner in respect of property bearing Sy.No 87/5 and 87/6 of Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk vide ANNEXURES – O,P,Q,R,S and T in interest of justice and equity.

5 vide Annexure-S and General Award vide Annexure- “T” in the above petition and for other reliefs. 2) The preliminary notification under section 28(1) of KIAD Act, 1966 was issued and gazetted on 08.10.2015 and the Final notification under section 28(4) of KIAD Act, 1966 was issued and gazetted on 22.02.2018. 3) The BMRCL, Respondent No.4, the beneficiary of the Acquisition under the aforesaid notification, appointed a committee to determine the market value of the lands under a package. The compensation package was determined and sent to the acquiring authority. 4) The Respondent No.3 issued notice under section 29(2) of KIAD Act, offering package compensation determined by BMRCL. In the meanwhile, Asst. Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub Division, initiated suo-motu proceedings under Rule 108-K of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and passed an order on 26.05.2017 under different provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in respect of the land owned by the Petitioner. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.24533-534/2017. The Respondent No.3 has taken note of the compensation package determined and offered by the BMRCL to the petitioner in the award. However, the 3rd Respondent has passed General Award solely on the ground that the Asst. Commissioner has passed

6 an order holding that the lands are Govt. land and it is difficult to decide the title to the property and therefore he is passing an award under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and title has to be decided on reference under section 30 and 31 of the said act. The award passed by the SLAO is challenged in the above Writ Petition. 5) This Hon’ble Court has been pleased to set aside the order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Assistant commissioner by partly allowing Writ Petition No.24533-34/2017 connected with other petitions by its order dated 07.02.2022. Further this Hon’ble court also directed the Respondent No.3 to make reference to the Reference Court under section 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. At Para No.10 of the said Order, this Hon’ble Court has placed reliance on the Order dated 03.02.2022 passed in the case of Sri. Ramanjinappa –Vs- State of Karnataka and others in W.P. No.2241/2022, wherein a direction was issued to the Acquiring Body through SLAO to refer the dispute of title to the Reference Court in terms of Section 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in view of the fact that the acquisition notification in the said case was issued in the year 2007, which is prior to the new act coming into force i.e 2013. 6) In Writ Petition No.24533-34/2017, this Hon’ble Court in Para No.12, specifically noted that “there is a dispute raised regarding the title of the Property and therefore the matter requires to be referred to

7 the Reference Court in terms of Section 30 & 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894”. There is also a finding in Para No.13 that “all the disputed questions of title are required to be decided by the Civil Court in the Reference under section 30 & 31 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894”. Even in Para No.14 of the order, this Hon’ble Court has noted that “Some of the Petitioners may have sought for enhancement of the compensation by initiating appropriate proceedings. Therefore, if proceedings have already been initiated at the hands of the Petitioners, the same shall continue with the rights of such parties not being affected by the ordered passed by this Court while referring the matter under section 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894for deciding the title of the properties for apportionment of the compensation amount”. Thus, it is very clear that the Reference is only for adjudication of the title and not for enhancement. 7) The Petitioner had received the Notice of Offer of the Compensation Package under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act with the specified amount fixed by BMRCL. By the time, the Petitioner could place his acceptance to receive the compensation package, the impugned order dated 26.05.2017 came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner and it is under the said circumstances, this Hon’ble Court directed the SLAO, KIADB to make reference to the Reference Court for adjudication of title.

8 8) The Petitioner is agreeable for accepting the compensation package provided under section 29(2) of the KIAD Act determined by BMRCL and offered to them by KIADB vide Annexure-“K”, Annexure-“L” and Annexure-“M” in the above writ petition with accrued interest from date of preliminary notification till date of payment. Thus, the petitioner will not seek any further enhancement of compensation on the package amount which would be deposited by the SLAO, KIADB before the Civil Court.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: (i) Permit the Petitioner to accept the Package Compensation offered by BMRCL/KIADB vide Annexure-“K”, Annexure-“L” and Annexure-“M” under section 29(2) of the KIAD Act with accrued interest till date of payment to the Petitioner; (ii) Direct the SLAO-KIADB to deposit the balance amount as per the Package compensation that was offered under section 29(2) of KIAD Act before the Reference Court. (iii) Direct that in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the Reference Proceedings pending before the Reference Court/11 Additional City Civil Court, Bangalore [CCH-17], the Petitioner shall be entitled to the package compensation amount so deposited together with the accrued interest;

9 (iv) Direct the Respondent No.5 & 6 to refund to the Petitioner the entire TDS amount received from the Respondent No.3 by providing the benefit provided under section 96 of the New Act, 2013 and with a further direction to the Respondent No.3 not to deduct any TDS amount in respect of the balance compensation package fixed by Respondent Nos.2 & 3. (v) The petitioner having accepted the package compensation referred to above, the Award Notice issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-O, General Award vide Annexure- P, Award Notice vide Annexure-Q and General Award vide Annexure-R, Award Notice issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-S and General Award vide Annexure- “T” be set aside with respect to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.

ORDER (i) The petition is hereby disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Memo dated 08.12.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner.

10 (ii) The impugned General Awards at Annexure-P dated 18.05.2019 and Annexures-R and T both dated 31.05.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent – SLAO, KIADB are hereby set aside and substituted by the package compensation offered by the BMRCL. (iii) The Reference Court, before whom the reference proceedings are pending pursuant to the order dated 07.02.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.25877/2017 & connected matters, is directed to dispose of the aforesaid reference proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) The entire package compensation offered by the BMRCL shall be deposited by the KIADB before the Reference court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (v) In the event, the KIADB has already deposited any amount before the Reference court as on date, the KIADB shall deposit the balance package compensation offered by the BMRCL within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11 (vi) The Reference Court is directed to invest the amount deposited by the KIADB in any Nationalised Bank. (vii) It is directed that in the event, the petitioner succeed before the Reference Court, the Reference Court shall release / disburse the entire package compensation amount together with accrued interest in favour of the petitioner. (viii) However, it is made clear that in the event, the petitioner is not successful before the Reference court, the amounts so deposited by the KIADB shall be refunded back to the KIADB by the Reference Court. (ix) The submission of the petitioner that in the event they succeed before the Reference Court, they shall not seek any enhancement of the package compensation with interest offered by the BMRCL is placed on record.

Sd/- JUDGE

Bmc/Srl.