Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
W.P.NOS.36444–36449 OF 2016 [LA-KIADB]
BETWEEN
RAMESH JOSHI
AGED AROUND 59 YEARS
S/O LATE SRINIVASA JOSHI
RESIDING AT NO.92
INCOME TAX LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560040.
B.S.PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
S/O LATE B.V.SHAMBHULINGAPA
RESIDING AT ARCHANA APARTMENTS
F2, RICHMOND TOWN
BANGALORE 560025.
G.C.JAYAPRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE G.CHIKKAMALLAPPA
R/O NO.369, PRAKRUTHI
2ND MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA
BANGALORE 560040.
VARUN NIKHIL NATHWANI
S/O NIKHIL CHHAGANLAL NATHWANI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O NO.697, 2ND ‘C’ CROSS
3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK
BASAWESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 079.
HARSH C. THAKRAR
S/O CHANDRESH R. THAKRAR
AGED AROUND 24 YEARS
“ALLIED ENTERPRISES”
CHAITANYA ARCADE
R/O NO.71, 1ST ‘N’ BLOCK
DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560010.
S.NAGENDRA
S/O LATE M.B.SOMASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/O NO.48, 8TH CROSS
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT FURTHER EXTENSION
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONERS
(BY:SRI NANDA KIRSHORE, ADVOCATE) AND:
K.RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
R/O NO.567, MARUTHI TEMPLE STREET
1ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR
MYSORE 570 023.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD
ZONAL OFFICE, KRS ROAD, METAGALLI
NEAR VIKRANT TYRES
MYSORE 570 016.
THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DPAR, KGS, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560001.
THE SECRETARY
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
KGS, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY:SRI N.SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI R.B.SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, A.G.A. FOR R4 & R5)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSORE IN LAC NO.28/2014 AND ETC.
THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R
The petitioners have called into question the judgment and award , dated 11.11.2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mysore (Reference Court) in L.A.C.No.28/2014 raising the market value from `25.00 per sq. ft. to `132 per sq. ft.
Sri Nandakishore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the purchasers of the sites from the respondent No.1. The sites are carved out of the lands acquired for the industrial purpose under the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. He
submits that having sold the lands to the petitioners and others, the respondent No.1 has no surviving interest in the land in question. He submits that in the past, when `4.00 crore was paid towards the compensation, the respondent No.1 did not disburse a pie to the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners’ legitimate apprehension is that out of `32.00 crores to be paid towards the compensation, the respondent No.1 may not give anything to the petitioners.
Sri N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. submits that the writ petitions filed by the site-owners are already dismissed by this Court by the learned Single Judge and that the same is confirmed by the Division Bench. He submits that the similarly placed site-owners had also made the impleading applications in the L.A.C. proceedings, which came to be rejected by the Reference Court. He submits that the petitioners’ apprehensions are absolutely unfounded. The respondent No.1 has always been disbursing the compensation to the site-owners in proportionate to their claims. He submits that the respondent
No.1 has been keeping all the site-owners informed of the passing of judgment and award by the Reference Court and the filing of the execution case by him. The learned counsel undertakes, on instructions, that the respondent No.1 shall release the amounts to the site-owners depending upon their entitlement.
The learned counsel submits that the quashing of the impugned judgment and award would only delay the process of disbursing the compensation amount. He submits that the acquiring body, namely, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board has already filed M.F.A.No.3334/2016 before this Court.
Sri R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the petitioners can make the necessary applications in the pending execution proceedings seeking a direction for the disbursal of the amounts to them. All that the respondent No.1 is required to do is to identify the purchasers of the sites from him.
Sri P.V.Chandrashekar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the allegations made by the petitioners against the respondent No.1 cannot be tested in the proceedings under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have to ventilate their grievances either by filing the petition for reviewing the impugned judgment and award or by making the obstructing application invoking Order XXI Rule 97 of C.P.C., 1908.
The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The impugned judgment and award are clearly appealable under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That apart, the petitioners’ apprehension that the respondent No.1 may refuse to disburse the amounts to the site-owners can be allayed by permitting the petitioners to make the necessary applications in the execution proceedings, if the site-holders are entitled to receive the compensation. If they have the apprehension that the payment of compensation from the respondent No.1 may elude them, their remedy would be to make the appropriate application in the execution
proceedings. It is for the Execution Court to consider the anticipated applications by passing such order, which would facilitate the disbursement of the compensation amount to the parties, who are entitled to receive it.
Reserving these liberties and with these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Now that the main matter itself is dismissed, nothing survives for consideration of I.A.1/16 for dispensation. It is dismissed as having become unnecessary.
Sd/- JUDGE
VGR