RAMESH JOSHI vs. K.RAMASWAMY

PDF · subscribers
WP/36444/2016HC KarnatakaKAHC01007754201618 July 2016Bench: ASHOK B HINCHIGERI7 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court observed that the impugned judgment and award were appealable. It also suggested that the petitioners' apprehension about receiving compensation could be addressed by making applications in the execution proceedings.

What were the facts?

Petitioners are purchasers of sites from respondent No.1, whose lands were acquired for industrial purposes. They apprehended that respondent No.1 would not disburse the compensation to them, as had happened previously. The Reference Court had enhanced the market value of the acquired land.

What were the issues?

Whether the petitioners, as purchasers of sites, have a right to directly receive compensation from the acquiring body, and how to address their apprehension of non-disbursement by the original landowner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

1.

RAMESH JOSHI

AGED AROUND 59 YEARS

S/O LATE SRINIVASA JOSHI

RESIDING AT NO.92

INCOME TAX LAYOUT

VIJAYANAGAR

BANGALORE 560040.

2.

B.S.PRABHU

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS

S/O LATE B.V.SHAMBHULINGAPA

RESIDING AT ARCHANA APARTMENTS

F2, RICHMOND TOWN

BANGALORE 560025.

3.

G.C.JAYAPRAKASH

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

S/O LATE G.CHIKKAMALLAPPA

R/O NO.369, PRAKRUTHI

2ND MAIN, VIJAYANAGARA

BANGALORE 560040.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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:

1.

K.RAMASWAMY

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

R/O NO.567, MARUTHI TEMPLE STREET

1ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR

MYSORE 570 023.

2.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

ZONAL OFFICE, KRS ROAD, METAGALLI

NEAR VIKRANT TYRES

MYSORE 570 016.

3.

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD

BANGALORE 560 009

REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

4.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

DPAR, KGS, VIDHANA SOUDHA

BANGALORE 560001.

5.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

Reserving these liberties and with these observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

9.

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

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →