Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 762 (KAR)

Parwathamma v. Chief Secretary

2013-07-03

ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner has called into question the third respondent's endorsement, dated 21.6.2011 (Annexure-P) turning down the petitioner's request for the grant of site. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner's land measuring 2 acres 10 guntas standing at Survey No.99 of Kasaba Hobli, Hassan Taluk and District along with other lands were acquired for the benefit of the Karnataka Housing Board ('KHB' for short) for implementing its housing scheme. The preliminary and final notifications were issued on 30.3.1999 and 15.5.2006. 3. In the meeting held on 28.5.2003 and 5.6.2003 under the presidentship of the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District, it was assessed that the price of the lands in question varies from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.12 lakhs per acre. Majority of the land-owners agreed to receive the compensation at Rs.4,40,000/-per acre plus one site measuring 30 x 40 ft., if the land-owners sell the land measuring 20 guntas to 2 acres and two sites to those who sell their lands measuring more than 2 acres. 4. As the petitioner did not give her consent, the final notification had to be issued and the award had to be passed. In the award passed on 29.12.2006, the market value of the land is fixed at Rs.4,40,000/-per acre. The petitioner submitted the representation, dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure-M) and 13.5.2011 (Annexure-N) requesting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to grant her a site. The respondents have issued the impugned endorsement stating that once the land is compulsorily acquired, there would not be any scope for granting the site. 5. Sri Halesha R.G., the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner never resisted the acquisition and surrender of the lands. As there were rival titleholders, the petitioner could not expressly surrender the lands to the respondents. He prays for a direction to the respondents to give two sites to the petitioner. 6. He submits that the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition notifications and that she has not even made the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of seeking the enhancement. 7. He prays for a direction to the respondents to give two sites to the petitioner. 6. He submits that the petitioner has not challenged the acquisition notifications and that she has not even made the reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of seeking the enhancement. 7. Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that as per the scheme, only those of the persons, who have sold their land to the KHB are entitled to the grant of the sites in addition to the compensation amount at the rate of Rs.4,40,000/- per acre. 8. Smt. G. Lakshmi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner has not attended the meeting held on 28.5.2003 and 5.6.2003. Further, as she has not given her consent, the question of granting the site to the petitioner would not arise at all. 9. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. It is trite position in law that different principles of compensation for the acquired land cannot be laid down. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER v. VITHAL RAO AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1973 SC 689 . The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow: "19. If this is so, then it is quite clear that the Government can acquire for a housing accommodation scheme either under the Land Acquisition Act or under the Improvement Act. If this is so, it enables the State Government to discriminate between one owner equally situated from another owner. 23. It is now well-settled that the State can make a reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. It is equally well-settled that the classification in order to be reasonable must satisfy two tests (i) the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and (ii) the differential must have a rational relations with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation in question. In this connections it must be borne in mind that the object itself should be lawful. In this connections it must be borne in mind that the object itself should be lawful. The object itself cannot be discriminatory, for otherwise, for instance, if the object is to discriminate against one section of the minority the discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that there is a reasonable classification because it has rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. 10. The Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. BALRAM AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2004 SC 3981, has held that if the lands are acquired for the same purpose and if they are similar and identical, the same market value has to be given, even if they are lying in different villages. 11. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the lands in question and the lands of others were covered by the preliminary notification, dated 30.3.1999. Therefore, not giving Rs.4,40,000/- per acre towards the compensation and giving two sites to the petitioner offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the petitioner has not given a formal or express consent to sell the land or to have her land acquired. 12. What is of material importance is that the petitioner has not resisted the acquisition. She has not challenged the acquisition notifications. Two other aspects of the matter, which cannot be ignored are that (a) the petitioner is a old woman of 80 years and (b) she is an unlettered villager. Only because she has not given her consent letter, the full benefits for taking her land for a public purpose cannot be denied to her. 13. Yet another aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has not even sought the reference invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for seeking the enhancement of the compensation. It is obvious that she has not sought the enhancement of the compensation, as she had the legitimate expectation that she would be given two sites in addition to the compensation. 14. The determination of the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.4,40,000/-per acre is on the lower side, as is evident from Annexure-R1, a copy of the proceedings of the meeting held under the presidentship of the Deputy Commissioner. 14. The determination of the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.4,40,000/-per acre is on the lower side, as is evident from Annexure-R1, a copy of the proceedings of the meeting held under the presidentship of the Deputy Commissioner. It states that the lands are in the heart of the Hassan Town and that they are in the vicinity of 600 meters from the bus stand. It further states the value of the land ranges from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.12 lakhs per acre. When such is the assessment of the Deputy Commissioner, granting of the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,40,000/-per acre can have no justificatory reason. Market value means the price which a willing purchaser pays for the similar land to a willing seller. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, I allow this petition by quashing the impugned endorsement. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's case for the grant of two sites. Alternatively, if it is the case of the respondents that a party whose land is compulsorily acquired is not entitled to any site, then the liberty has to be reserved to the petitioner to make an application seeking the enhancement of compensation amount invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 16. If the respondents decide to give two sites in addition to the compensation, that should mark the finality of the settlement of the petitioner's claims towards the compensation payable to her on account of the compulsory acquisition of land. If the respondents pass the order refusing to grant two sites, then within one month from the date of passing such an order, the petitioner shall make reference application before the competent authority. If one such application is filed within one month, the competent authority is directed to refer the matter to the Reference Court without raising the issue of limitation, because the petitioner has been prosecuting the remedy of submitting the representation for the purpose of taking the sites. The petitioner's failure to get the sites should not drive her to a situation, where she cannot even seek just and full market value for the loss of her lands. 17. This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.