Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 344 (KAR)

M. Nagendra Murthy v. State of Karnataka

2012-04-11

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2012
ORDER Mohan Shantanagoudar , J.—The petitioners 1 to 3 have purchased one site each measuring 60 feet x 45 feet carved out in Sy. No. 149/3 situated at Bogadi Village. The sale deeds came to be executed in favour of the petitioners on 5-7-1968. Various properties including Sy. No. 149/3 were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of formation of housing layout by the Mysore Urban Development Authority ('MUDA' for short) by issuing the preliminary notification dated 19-12-1963 and final notification dated 25-3-1969. Thus it is clear that the petitioners purchased the sites prior to issuing of final notification. According to the petitioners, they are not paid compensation till this date. As could be seen from Annexure-J, they had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square yard amounting to Rs. 3,000/- on the total area of each site as on 26-3-1970. However the respondents did not pay the compensation to the petitioners subsequently. Thus the petitioners started making representations from the year 2004 onwards. The Land Acquisition Officer of MUDA, Mysore had directed the petitioners to produce the records pertaining to the ownership of the sites in question. According to the petitioners, such title records are produced as per Annexure-P. However, till this date neither the petitioners are paid compensation nor compensation is deposited in the Civil Court as required under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, the petitioners subsequently made applications for grant of alternative sites in their favour basing their claim on subsequent notification/decision taken by the respondents. Finally the endorsements came to be issued as per Annexures-W and X, dated 18-8-2007 and 27-10-2007 respectively intimating the petitioners that they cannot be granted alternative sites in lieu of the acquired sites inasmuch as there was no scheme/notification/decision taken by MUDA during the relevant period of acquisition for grant of sites as incentive. The petitioners are relying upon the document at Annexure-R and the judgment at Annexure-S to contend that they are entitled to allotment of alternative site. The notification Annexure-R, dated 12-10-2006 issued by MUDA reveals that certain of the land losers who have lost their land in the year 2005 are granted the alternative sites based on the decision taken by MUDA. Such a scheme/decision of MUDA was not in existence at the time of acquisition in question. The notification Annexure-R, dated 12-10-2006 issued by MUDA reveals that certain of the land losers who have lost their land in the year 2005 are granted the alternative sites based on the decision taken by MUDA. Such a scheme/decision of MUDA was not in existence at the time of acquisition in question. The subsequent notification for grant of alternative sites under the incentive scheme issued somewhere in the year 2005 by MUDA cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case inasmuch as it cannot have retrospective effect. As on the date of acquisition i.e., as on the year 1969 there is no scheme as such formulated by MUDA to allot alternative site under the incentive scheme. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek for allotment of alternative site based on the subsequent notification. For the very reasons, the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 1685 of 2006 and connected matters disposed of on 7-8-2007 produced at Annexure-S is also not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence the prayer of the petitioners of grant of alternative site is rightly rejected by the authority. 2. However, the facts on hand are peculiar. The endorsement Annexure-W, dated 18-8-2007 clearly reveals that the sites in question are acquired in the year 1968-69. It also reveals that the compensation is not paid in respect of Sy. No. 149/3 to an extent of 31¼ guntas. However only three persons were granted compensation who had lost their sites carved out in Sy. No. 149/3. The names of those three persons are clearly mentioned in Annexure-W. Petitioners are not such persons who are paid compensation. Thus admittedly the petitioners are not paid compensation with regard to sites which came to be acquired in the year 1968-69 till this date. About 43 years have elapsed after issuing final notification. Though the award came to be passed subsequent to passing of the final notification, the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited in the Civil Court. There is nothing on record to show that there is confusion with regard to either apportionment or entitlement of compensation by the petitioners. Even assuming that there was any confusion with regard to apportionment or entitlement of compensation, it was open for the acquiring authority to deposit the compensation under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Court. There is nothing on record to show that there is confusion with regard to either apportionment or entitlement of compensation by the petitioners. Even assuming that there was any confusion with regard to apportionment or entitlement of compensation, it was open for the acquiring authority to deposit the compensation under Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Court. The respondents have not shown their bona fides in depositing the amount of compensation till this date though the final acquisition notification was passed as back as in the year 1969. It is no doubt true that the petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The provisions of Sections 11A, 31 and 34 are to be read together and homogeneously. If they are read homogeneously, one can definitely come to the conclusion that the award not only is to be made within the prescribed period of two years, but the compensation to be deposited within the reasonable period thereafter. Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act further makes it clear that on making the award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the compensation shall be paid to the land loser or to be deposited (if payment is not possible due to one or more contingencies mentioned in Section 31), as early as possible after passing of the award, but definitely within the reasonable period. Merely because Section 34 specifies that interest should be paid by the State if the amount of compensation is not deposited within one year or so, State cannot ever postpone deposit of compensation for ever. Ultimately the money involved is the tax payers money. The land loser has to be compensated within the reasonable period, if not forthwith. He cannot be made to wait for such an unreasonable period of more than 40 years. The persons having one site or a small piece of land would be ruined in case if he is not compensated within the reasonable period. Had the Compensation been deposited immediately after the final notification or after passing the award, the petitioners would have made arrangements to buy the sites in the alternative. Because of the lapse on the part of the respondents, the petitioners are suffering. Such an attitude of the respondents cannot be tolerated. Had the Compensation been deposited immediately after the final notification or after passing the award, the petitioners would have made arrangements to buy the sites in the alternative. Because of the lapse on the part of the respondents, the petitioners are suffering. Such an attitude of the respondents cannot be tolerated. From the facts it is clear that the award made in the year 1970 was not intended to be acted upon and was only nominal. The award never operated, thus was only a inoperative award. It was a make believe document. Such a award which was valid at the time of passing the same, becomes invalid or inoperative or futile or non-existent or infructuous award by passage of huge time, as compensation is not paid. As the award of 1970 was never acted upon and no compensation is paid till today, virtually there is no award in the eye of law, in the matter. Hence, in law, the acquisition of the sites in question is bad and is liable to be quashed. But as the possession of the property was taken about 44 years prior to this day, in my considered opinion the acquired sites of the petitioner cannot be ordered to be returned to them. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the respondents are liable to pay heavy costs to each of the petitioners; or the petitioners shall be paid compensation treating the date of preliminary notification as 22-12-2009 (i.e., date of filing this writ petition) or the respondents will be directed to allot a site measuring 40 feet x 60 feet in any layout of Mysore subject to payment of sital value fixed by the MUDA. 3. In view of the above, the following order is made.-- The respondents 2 and 3 shall forthwith deposit the compensation in favour of the petitioners in the Civil Court as per law treating the date of preliminary notification as 22-12-2009 (date of filing of writ petition). Since the amount of compensation is not deposited for more than 43 years and as the petitioners are made to wait for such long period of time, respondents 2 and 3 shall pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to each of the petitioners. Since the amount of compensation is not deposited for more than 43 years and as the petitioners are made to wait for such long period of time, respondents 2 and 3 shall pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to each of the petitioners. Thus, in total, respondents 2 and 3 shall pay costs of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) only to the petitioners. OR In the alternative, the respondents 2 and 3 shall allot sites in favour of each of the petitioners measuring 40 feet x 60 feet in any layout formed by MUDA at Mysore by collecting the sital value prescribed by it as on the date of allotment. 4. Compliance of this order shall be made within four months from the date of receipt of this order.