Land Acquisition Act| When Representation To Pay Compensation Is Made In Notification, Authorities Cannot Be Allowed To Contend Contrary- Karnataka HC
A Karnataka High Court Bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal has stressed that when a representation to pay the compensation under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is made in the very notification, respondent-authorities cannot be allowed to contend the contrary.
In that context, it was said that, "it is necessary at this juncture to refer to the very notification dated 15.10.2015 issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 seeking to acquire the subject property in that it is stated that compensation for acquisition would be paid in terms of Act, 2013. When a representation to pay the compensation is under Act, 2013 is made in the very notification, respondent-authorities cannot be allowed to contend the contrary."
Senior Advocate Dhananjay V Joshi appeared for the appellants, which Senior Advocate Basavaraj V Sabarad, among others, appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the legal dispute stemmed from land acquisitions made for the development of Phase-II of the Bangalore Metro Rail Project. Respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.890/2022 claimed to be the owners of specific properties identified as R1E-235 and R1E-235A, both situated in Sadaramangala Village on Whitefield Main Road in Bengaluru. They initiated a writ petition, W.P.No.43206/2018, contending that their property, R1E-235, had been earmarked for acquisition by respondent No. 8, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), as part of the Bangalore Metro Rail Project-Phase-II.
The acquisition process was initiated based on preliminary and final notifications dated 22.09.2015 and 04.04.2016, issued under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). An award was subsequently issued on 25.10.2018.
Simultaneously, property R1E-235A was also notified for acquisition, with a preliminary notification dated 16.12.2017 and a final notification dated 25.05.2018. In this case, no award had been passed as of the time of the legal proceedings. However, KIADB issued an official memorandum on 06.07.2017, directing the payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (referred to as 'Act, 1894').
The main point of contention raised by Respondents 1 and 2 revolved around the amount of compensation awarded and the deduction of income tax at the source from the compensation without providing any exemption from this tax. They argued that they were entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, which became effective on 01.01.2014. They deemed the act of awarding compensation under Act 1894 and not under Act 2013 as illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
Subsequently, the Court observed that, "though a submission is sought to be made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is burdened with the liability of meeting the project expenses including payment of compensation is aggrieved by the impugned order directing payment of compensation to the respondents/ writ petitioners under Act, 2013 , in view of Annexure-H dated 21.10.2016 issued by the appellant as noted above, the appellant cannot be heard to contend otherwise."
In light of the same, the Court held that although the appellant made out a case for maintainability of the writ appeal, it could not be heard to say that the respondents/petitioners are not entitled to payment of compensation under Act, 2013.
Therefore, on the facts and principles of parity, the High Court held that the Single Judge had rightly observed that the parties were entitled for the compensation.
Cause Title: Bangalore Metro Rail vs M/s Sri Balaji Corporate Services
Click here to read/download the Judgment
