Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals … vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Karnataka High Court

Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals … vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2024

Author: M.G.S.Kamal

Bench: M.G.S.Kamal

                          1



                                                R
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                        BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

     WRIT PETITION NO. 22685 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)
                        C/W
     WRIT PETITION NO.15168 OF 2023 (LA-KIADB)

IN WP.No.22685/2023
BETWEEN:

MANGALORE REFINERY
AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
KUTHETHOOR P.O, VIA KATIPALLA
MANGALORE - 575 030
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY SRI. KANNAN D.,
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVA PRABHU PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL
     CHIEF SECRETARY- DEPARTMENT OF
     INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
     VIDHANA SOUDHA
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
                           2



2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
     OFFICER KIADB, PLOT NO 12
     BAIKAMPADY, MANGALORE - 575 011
     REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND
     ACQUISITION OFFICER.

3.   KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAL
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     4TH AND 5TH EAST WING
     5TH FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVAN
     RACE COURSE ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
     OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER.

4.   JEMCY PONNAPPA C.P.,
     S/O C.P POONACHA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT 4TH BLOCK,
     BYPASS ROAD,
     KUSHALNAGAR, SOMAWARPET TALUK ,
     KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.

                                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1;
   SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
   SRI. B.B. PATIL FOR R2 AND R3;
   SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR
   SRI. A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
i) QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS DATED:15.12.2017 AND
25.11.2020 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF THE KIAD ACT
VIDE ANNEXURE -F AND ANNEXURE-F1 INSOFAR AS THEY
RELATE TO THE LANDS REFERRED IN THE AWARD BEARING
NO. LAQ S.R.3/2016-17/III PASSED BY THE SLAO, KIADB
DATED:07/07/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
                           3


IN WRIT PETITION No.15168 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1.   JEMCY PONNAPPA. C. P.
     S/O C P POONACHA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     4TH BLOCK, BYPASS ROAD,
     KUSHALNAGAR, SOMWARPET TALUK,
     KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231

     REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
     MR ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     S/O K N BALASUBRAMANYAN,
     45, 11TH MAIN, 13TH CROSS,
     MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 003.

2.   M/s.CASUBA INFRASTRUCTURE AND
     DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
     PARTNERSHIP FIRM
     REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 58(1)
     OF INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932
     PRESENTLY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO 14,
     SRI NIKETAN, NANDI DURGA ROAD,
     BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 003
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
     MR ARJUN BALASUBRAMANYAM.


                                   ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BASAVA PRABHU PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. AJAY J NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
     M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
                           4



2.   THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     KHANIJA BHAVAN,
     RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 001
     BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

3.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     K.I.A.D.B REGIONAL OFFICE,
     BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     NEW MANGALORE - 575 011.

4.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     K.I.A.D.B REGIONAL OFFICE,
     BYKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     NEW MANGALORE - 575 011.

                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. AZRA J. DUNDGE, AGA FOR R1;
   SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
   SRI. B.B. PATIL FOR R2 TO R4;
   SRI. BASAVA PRABHU PATIL, SR. COUNSEL FOR
   SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE FOR PROPOSED RESPONDENT
NO.I.A. NO.2/2023)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO DISBURSE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
OF RS.197,28,34,758/- (RUPEES ONE HUNDRED NINETY
SEVEN CRORES TWENTY EIGHT LAKHS THIRTY FOUR
THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT ONLY) TO THE
PETITIONERS AS PER THE GENERAL AWARD DATED:
16/03/2023  BEARING    NO.LAQ.S.R.3/2016-17/III  VIDE
ANNEXURE-D AT THE EARLIEST.


     THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED    ON   31.01.2024,  COMING    ON   FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                                   5



                              ORDER

Writ Petition in W.P.No.22685/2023 is filed by the

petitioner -Mangalore Refinery Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL)

seeking quashment of notifications dated 15.12.2017 and

25.11.2020 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) vide

Annexure-F and F-1 insofar as they relate to lands referred to

in the Award bearing No.LAQ.S.R.3/2016-2017/III passed by

the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), Karnataka

Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) dated

07.07.2023 vide Annexure-M and consequently to quash the

award dated 07.07.2023 vide Annexure-M and for issue of

writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to

consider the representation of the MRPL dated 20.09.2023

vide Annexure-P to allot alternative land parcel of 170.96

acres belonging to Government for the purpose of setting up

Rehabilitation and Resettlement of displaced persons.

2. Writ Petition No.15168/2023 is filed by the petitioners

namely C.P.Jemcy Ponnappa and one M/s.Casuba

Infrastructure and Development Company a registered
6

Partnership Firm (land owners) seeking issue of writ of

mandamus directing respondents to disburse compensation

amount of Rs.197,28,34,758/- to the petitioners as per the

General Award dated 16.03.2023 bearing No.LAQ.S.R.3/2016-

2017/III vide Annexure-D at the earliest.

3. Facts leading up to filing of writ petition in

W.P.No.22685/2023 filed by MRPL are:

a. That MRPL is a Schedule A Government of

India Enterprises and subsidiary of Oil and Natural Gas

Corporation Limited. MRPL operates under the

administrative control of Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, Government of India and manages an Oil

Refinery in Mangaluru. In view of expansion of its

business in refinery it had approached respondents 1 to

3 authorities seeking acquisition of land. The project of

MRPL was placed before the 39th High Level Clearance

Committee which was approved by the respondent

No.1-State vide its order dated 14.09.2015. Pursuant

thereof certain lands were acquired which were required

to carry out Rehabilitation and Resettlement of
7

displaced persons to put up residential plots for such

persons together with basic infrastructures with all civic

amenities.

b. Respondent No.3-KIADB was on the look out

for a suitable land required by MRPL. Respondent No.4

-Jemcy Ponnappa (land owner) and another person by

name R.K.Nagendra had represented KIADB indicating

they had more than 173.67 acres of land that could be

acquired for MRPL. Based on which, Development

Officer- KIADB, SLAO-KIADB and Joint Director-District

Industrial Centre, Mangaluru conducted an inspection of

the land on 20.08.2015 and reported to Deputy

Commissioner on 31.08.2015 that the land could be

acquired for industrial area. That the report indicated

that lands were dry, wet and bhagayutu agricultural plot

which are next to the Gurupura River having road

connectivity and water facilities and the airport is

around 4 kms away and that it was opined the said land

was suitable.

8

c. That said land owner along with one

R.K.Nagendra continuously followed up and also made a

detailed representation on 03.10.2015 requesting

KIADB that their lands which are extremely suitable for

the purpose of MRPL could be acquired. That the said

representation also stated the lands located at

Kandavara and Muloor Village have already been

inspected and that they are acceptable for

compensation in the lines with “present norms for land

acquisition”.

d. That pursuant to the report prepared and

accepted by the Special Deputy Commissioner regarding

suitability of the land, MRPL on a request from KIADB

conveyed its consent for acquisition of the lands in

Kandavara and Muloor Village belonging to the land

owner and said R.K.Nagendra vide letter dated

07.12.2015. A formal request was also made for

inclusion of the said land and an amendment to the

earlier Government Order was issued on 20.02.2016.
9

e. That a final notification was issued under

Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act on 15.12.2017 in respect

of land to an extent of 90.685 acres in Muloor village

and an extent of 52.555 acres in Kandavara Village to

be acquired for the purpose of MRPL. By way of another

notification dated 25.11.2020 an extent of 24.13 acres

in Muloor village and 3.59 acres in Kandavara village

was also acquired by KIADB.

f. That on the basis of said acquisition KIADB

directed the MRPL to pre-deposit the compensation.

Accordingly it has deposited 694.68 Crores during the

year 2016-2017 towards total land acquisition cost.

That a General Award was passed on 18.11.2020 by the

SLAO.

g. That as the development of acquired land was

entrusted to KIADB it began inspection of land during

December, 2022 and filed a detailed project report. In

the report it is pointed out that the land belonging to

land owner and said R.K.Nagendra which were notified

are situated in a valley portion and proposed layout bed
10

was 3 meters below the bed level of the river and that

there is stagnation of water at major portion of the

layout. That during rainy season high volume water run

into the valley creating a lake type scenario. That the

lands are situated next to Gurupura river which

overflows into lands every rainy season.

h. That MRPL was requested by the project

affected persons not to shift them to the area which is

not good for a safe habitat. That as per the estimation

of KIADB the total project cost would gravely increase

to about 224.7 Crores for development of around 95.2

acres even without construction of residential buildings

or any facilities required for rehabilitation and

resettlement colony which is financially unviable. That

apart there is a very high risk of land slide and land

washing away in the case of flooding which is regular in

the area during rainy season.

j. That land owner grossly misrepresented and

gotten the report dated 20.08.2015 prepared from the

Development Officer-KIADB, SLAO-KIADB and Joint
11

Director-District Industrial Centre, Mangaluru through

illegal means. The inspection report deliberately

suppressed the fact that the land is submerged more

than 3 meters for atleast six months a year and the land

is not suitable for habitation.

k. The land owner had stated that his land is

agricultural land suitable for the purpose of MRPL. That

even in the price fixation meeting convened on

28.02.2019 he did not mention that the land is

converted. The land owner had even represented that

he would be satisfied with the compensation as per the

prevailing norms. But however, started filing writ

petition seeking compensation under Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013)

claiming the lands to be the converted lands. MRPL was

not party to the said proceedings.

l. That the land owner in connivance with the

KIADB officials knowing fully well that his proposal

would go through had applied and obtained orders of
12

conversion of land from agriculture to non-agriculture

purpose and accordingly filed writ petition in

W.P.No.12699/2021 and obtained the order dated

21.10.2022 directing the respondent authorities to pass

fresh award treating his land as converted land.

m. That this Court in the aforesaid order dated

21.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.12699/2021 had directed

to notify and hear MRPL before passing any award. A

copy of the said order was furnished by SLAO to MRPL

vide letter dated 13.12.2022 seeking its opinion. MRPL

by its letter dated 20.12.2022 sought details in relation

to approximate rate per acre of converted land and if it

was possible MRPL to forfeit land to an extent of 49.87

acres from acquisition process. In response, MRPL

received letter dated 23.12.2022 from KIADB stating

the cost of lands could be around 55.73 Crores if

treated as converted lands. As the rate fixed by the

District Administration was at Rs.80 lakhs per acre

which was disbursed to all eligible land owners, MRPL

submitted that it was not in agreement to pay higher

compensation. Hence, sought for denotification of land
13

to an extent of 49.87 acres and objected for passing of

fresh award by its letter dated 04.01.2023. As MRPL

did not receive any reply to said letter it again

addressed another letter dated 22.03.2023 seeking

confirmation of denotification of said lands.

n. In the meanwhile it learnt about land owners

filing writ petition in W.P.No.15168/2023 seeking

direction to KIADB to disburse the compensation

wherein KIADB had submitted fresh award dated

07.07.2023. That the fresh award is passed without

hearing the MRPL.

o. In the circumstances MRPL addressed a letter

dated 08.09.2023 to the Chief Secretary, Government

of Karnataka seeking denotification of said lands subject

matter of the General Award. It also addressed a letter

dated 20.09.2023 to the respondent No.3 seeking

allotment of alternate land in view of land belonging to

land owners was unsuitable for the project apart from

enhancement of cost of acquisition resulting in huge

additional burden on the public exchequer.
14

p. That land owner had actively misrepresented

regarding the utility of land to the respondents 2 and 3

and had thus induced them to acquire the lands.

           q.     That there has been a fraud of gigantic

     proportion    perpetuated      by    the   land   owners    in

connivance with the KIADB officials at Mangaluru which

resulted in acquisition of useless and water logged

lands.

r. On these facts MRPL filed the petition seeking

the reliefs as noted above.

4. Objection statement has been filed by the land owner to

the said petition denying the petition averments wherein it is

contended that:

a. The process of acquisition commenced by the

State by issuing preliminary notification on 20.12.2016

declaring subject lands as an industrial area.

A notification under Section 28(2) of KIAD Act was

issued on 04.01.2017. Final Notification under Section

28(4) was issued on 15.12.2017. Possession of the land

was taken on 01.03.2018 and handed over to KIADB on
15

29.01.2019. Three different awards have been passed

relating to subject lands on 18.11.2020, 26.03.2023

and 07.07.2023. That the award dated 07.07.2023 has

been approved by the State Government. In view of

these developments petition seeking quashing of

acquisition was not maintainable.

b. That the MRPL being beneficiary has no right

to question the compensation awarded under Award

dated 07.07.2023.

c. That prior to acquisition of subject lands, the

officials of KIADB and MRPL had approached the land

owner seeking concurrence to acquire the lands

belonging to him. That the letter dated 03.10.2015 was

issued by the land owner and R.K.Nagendra at the

instructions of MRPL and officials of KIADB. MRPL and

officials of KIADB had represented that land owner

would be paid sufficient compensation and had thus,

induced the land owner to consent for acquisition.

d. That out of 176 acres acquired at Muloor and

Kandavara village 116 acres of land belong to land
16

owners and R.K.Nagendra. Of which 66 acres of land

were agriculture in nature and remaining 50 acres were

converted lands.

e. MRPL and KIADB officials had expressed their

intention to acquire the lands belonging to land owner

only after visiting the subject lands and after obtaining

detailed project report that was prepared on 31.08.2015

regarding viability of the lands for the purpose of the

project of MRPL. The notification was issued on

04.01.2017. Joint inspection, joint measurement,

sketch and extract were prepared on 03.10.2017. It is

only thereafter objections were called for from the land

owners. Since the land owners had already given their

consent they did not submit their objections.

f. The land owners who attended the rate fixation

committee meeting in terms of notice under Section

28(3) of the KIAD Act had informed that they are

interested in higher compensation as the lands were

converted and a statement in this regard was made on

10.07.2017. The rate fixation committee after hearing
17

the objections had taken decision to pay compensation

under consent award which was not agreeable. A

consent award was passed fixing the compensation of

Rs.80 lakhs per acre in respect of agricultural land. The

land owners were not agreeable to receive the said

award/compensation in respect of the converted land.

Portions of properties acquired which are agricultural

and non-agricultural converted lands are situated

adjacent to each other.

      g.     In the general award dated 18.11.2020

produced      in   the      contempt      proceeding       in

CCC No.174/2020 the compensation in respect of the

land belonged to the land owners were fixed considering

them to be the agricultural lands constraining filing of

writ petition in W.P.No.12699/2021. This Court directed

the respondent to fix the compensation to an extent of

49.925 acres considering it as converted lands.

h. The SLAO pursuant to the direction issued in

the writ petition No. 12699/2021 had issued letter dated

13.12.2022 to the MRPL seeking its opinion regarding
18

fixation of compensation intimating the order passed in

the said writ petition. In response MRPL had issued a

reply dated 4.1.2023 indicating it would not be willing to

pay higher compensation. Nowhere in the said letter did

MRPL alleged that the subject lands belonging to the

land owners were not viable for the project. But it only

indicated that if the compensation was fixed more than

80 lakhs per acre it would not pay such higher

compensation. Even after passing of the award dated

7.7.2023 MRPL by his letter dated 03.09.2023

expressed its unwillingness to pay higher compensation.

Thus, the only grouse of the MRPL was with regard to

higher compensation. No ground of any nature made

regarding fraud or land being not viable for the project.

Yet again by letter dated 20.09.2023 MRPL had

reiterated its unwillingness to pay the higher rate of

compensation and nothing else.

j. As regards the allegation of inducement by the

land owners, obtaining conversion order subsequent to

the notification and non viability of the lands for the

project, it is contented that officials of KIADB and MRPL
19

had inspected the subject lands prior to initiation of

process of acquisition. A report had been prepared, in

terms of the said report it was found that the lands

belonging to the land owners are viable for executing

project. It is only then the subject lands were notified.

The lands were converted much prior to the notification

dated 20.12.2016. No fraud is played by the land

owners in obtaining conversion to seek higher

compensation as alleged.

k. The compensation is fixed by the SLAO at the

first instance was pursuant to the order passed by this

Court in W.P.No.12699/2021 on 16.03.2023 fixing the

compensation at Rs.197,28,34,758/- which was

unilaterally reduced in award dated 7.7.2023 by fixing

the same at Rs.55,69,76,670/-.

l. That certain lands belonging to the MRPL in the

very same villages have been utilized by GAIL India Ltd.

and the compensation has been fixed at Rs.52,61,100/-

for the converted lands in terms of the award passed by

the Deputy Commissioner. Thus the market value of the
20

property that has been arrived at by the Deputy

Commissioner is at Rs.52,61,100/- which is highly

inadequate. That the only intention of filing of the

petition is to delay and deny the entitlement of the land

owners to the compensation.

m. The other allegations made in the writ petition

with regard to MRPL incurring additional cost, viability of

land etc., have been denied and hence sought for

dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The KIADB in its statement of objections while denying

the petition averments contended that;

(a) the land owners had misrepresented about the

suitability of the lands to the project and the same

amounted to misrepresentation and concealment of

facts.

(b) It is further contended that MRPL and the KIADB

had reciprocally communicated with each other and

based on consents and reciprocal promises notifications

in questions were issued notifying the lands belonging

to the land owners and others for the project of MRPL.
21

(c) Reference is made to the order passed by this Court

in W.P.No.12699/2021. It is also contended that KIADB

has sought opinion of MRPL before passing the award

who had replied the land rates are high and pleaded

their inability to bear the cost and sought for

denotification of lands. Taking note of the order dated

passed in the said writ petition fresh award dated

7.7.2023 was passed under Section 30 of the Act, 2013.

(d) That the KIADB would take necessary action on

the representation made by the MRPL in accordance

with law.

(e) That the contract arrived at between the parties

under misrepresentation is not executable and not valid.

That the writ petition has no merits and substance.

Petitioner is not entitled for the relief. Hence, sought for

dismissal of the petition.

6. Facts leading up to filing of writ petition in

W.P.No.15168/2023 filed by land owners are:
22

a. That Respondent No.1 State by preliminary

notification dated:20.12.2016 issued under section

28(1) KIAD Act followed by the final Notification

dated 15.12.2017 issued under Section 28(4) of the

KIAD Act sought to acquire certain lands for the

benefit of MRPL to carryout Rehabilitation and

Resettlement of persons who are displaced by Phase

IV Expansion Project of MRPL of its refinery. In the

said notifications land situated in the villages known

as Thenkayekkaru, Muloor and Kandavara.

b. That total extent of land belonging to the land

owners notified under the aforesaid notifications is

176 acres. However, present petition is confined to

the lands belonging to the land owners to an extent

of 48 acres 96.5 cents situated at Muloor and

Kandavara Villages of Gurupura Hobli, Mangaluru

Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District (the subject lands).

c. Pursuant to the acquisition, possession of the

subject land has been taken on 01.03.2018. Since

the award had not been passed, land owners had filed
23

writ petition in W.P.No.15520/2019 which was

allowed by order dated 22.04.2019 directing the

respondent authorities to pass the award. By an

endorsement dated 03.07.2019 and communication

dated 14.06.2019 the land owners were informed

that compensation would be paid under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894) and not under the

Act, 2013. This led to filing of writ petition in

W.P.No.33053/2019 by the land owners which was

allowed by this Court on 01.02.2019 directing the

respondent authorities to pass the award under Act,

2013. Non compliance of the said order resulted in

land owners initiating contempt proceedings in

C.C.No.174/2020 in which apparently a General

Award dated 18.11.2020 was filed. In the said

General Award it appears subject lands were treated

as agricultural lands though according to the land

owners subject lands were converted. This again

constrained the land owners to file another writ

petition in W.P.No.12699/2021 which was allowed by

this Court by order dated 21.10.2022 quashing the
24

General Award dated 18.11.2020 and directing the

respondents to pass fresh award under Section 30 of

the KIAD Act read with Act, 2013 treating the subject

lands of the land owners as converted lands within

two months.

d. Since there was no compliance to the said order

land owners yet again initiated contempt proceedings

in C.C.C.No.364/2023 which is pending consideration.

In the said proceedings respondent No.3-KIADB along

with its statement of objections filed General Award

dated 16.03.2023 for a sum of Rs.197,28,34,758/-

however did not disburse the said amount to the land

owners, constraining the land owners to file the writ

petition in W.P.No.15168/2023.

7. Objection statements has been filed by the respondents 2

to 4 to the writ petition confirming the acquisition of the lands

of the land owners. Averments with regard to land owners

filing the writ petition seeking adequate compensation is also

admitted. It is contended by the respondent 2 to 4 that

award dated 07.07.2023 for Rs.55,69,76,660/- as per
25

Annexure-R1 has been passed and that same has been

approved by the State Government on 07.09.2023. It is

further contended that award is merely an offer and the land

owners can seek enhancement of the same in accordance with

law.

8. An application in IA No.2/2023 is filed by MRPL under

Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC seeking to implead itself as party

respondent No.5 in the writ petition. In the affidavit

accompanying the said application it is contended that the

acquisition of lands was carried out by KIADB for the benefit

of MRPL which has to bear the cost of entire acquisition and

also cost to develop the land for its Rehabilitation and

Resettlement purposes. That KIADB which is entrusted with

the task of developing of the land for the benefit of MRPL had

submitted report regarding suitability of the land wherein it is

found that the entire land area is water logged during rainy

reasons and is not suitable for the purpose to which it is

acquired. That huge amount would have to be spent for the

purpose of developing of the land. Subject land were acquired

upon the misrepresentation and fraud played by the land
26

owners in collusion with official of KIADB. That MRPL had

made several representations to the Government seeking

withdrawal from acquisition of the lands so far as belonging to

the land owners and the other lands which are lying in low

areas and to substitute the same with suitable lands. That

the above petition of the land owners is for disbursement of

the compensation amount and if the compensation is

disbursed impleading applicant would be put to hardship.

Hence, sought for impleadment as party respondent.

9. Objection statement is filed to the said application by

the land owners seeking rejection of the said application

contending that MRPL and the officials of KIADB had studied

the viability of the lands subject of land owners and only after

conducting a joint inspection the respondent authorities

proceeded to acquire the subject lands. That the MRPL by its

letter 07.12.2015 had requested the respondent No.3 to

notify the lands in Muloor and Kandavara village belonging to

land owners and others. MRPL had also given consent to

acquire the lands and the same was intimated to the land

owners by letter dated 09.12.2015. The compensation was

determined and has been paid in respect of all the acquired
27

lands except subject lands belonging to land owners. The

compensation has been determined and has been directed to

be paid to the land owners after several rounds of litigation by

filing writ petitions before this Court. Entire acquisition

process having been completed in the manner known to law,

the application is filed merely because the awarded amount is

high. That the present application is filed only to escape from

the liability of payment of compensation. The allegation of non

suitability, fraud and misrepresentation attributed on the land

owners after six long years of the process of acquisition is

unfortunate and uncalled for. That MRPL is not a necessary

party to the said writ petition. Hence, sought for rejection of

the application.

SUBMISSIONS:

10. Sri.Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior counsel

appearing for MRPL reiterating the grounds urged in the

memorandum of writ petition submitted that:

a. That the award dated 07.07.2023 is contrary

to the direction issued by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in W.P.No.12699/2021 wherein a specific direction
28

was issued to respondents 2 and 3 to hear the MRPL

before passing the fresh/new award. Thus, there is

complete non-compliance of the said order resulting in

violation of principles of natural justice requiring the

entire award to be struck down.

b. MRPL being beneficiary of the acquisition ought

to have been made party to the proceedings seeking

enhancement of compensation and the respondent

authorities without appreciating the said fact have

passed the award.

c. Rehabilitation and Resettlement project has

been undertaken by KIADB. Jemcy Ponnappa-land

owner and one K.R.Nagendra by their communications

dated 03.10.2015 addressed to Managing Director of

MRPL and Chief Executive Officer of KIADB, though had

offered their land for acquisition had indeed

misrepresented and induced them to acquire their land.

He further submits that the perusal of said documents

at Annexure-C and D would indicate that they had

expressed their willingness to give their land to KIADB if
29

they were compensated adequately in the lines with the

norms for land acquisition. They had also represented

that they would like to contribute their land for the

cause of nation building and employment generation

through industrialization. Thus, referring to the

documents learned Senior counsel submitted that the

land owners had not disclosed about the feasibility of

the lands. He insisted that but for the representation

and the follow up made by the land owners and said

Nagendra KIADB would not have acquired the land.

d. Referring to Annexure-B a joint inspection

report of KIADB dated 31.08.2015, learned Senior

counsel submitted that the land owners managed to

have said report prepared suitable to their requirements

in collusion with officials of KIADB. Referring to the

report produced at Annexure-G to the writ petition and

the photographs shown therein learned Senior counsel

submitted that the project site is not ideal for

development of residential colony. He further points out

that as per the report the area to an extent of 95.02

acres is in valley region with river Gurupura flowing
30

from East to West below the level of the river bed

requiring raising the extent to about 3 meters high to

avoid flood and formation of ponds which in turn

requires additional expenses resulting in 30 to 45%

higher amount than estimated. Thus, referring to the

said report learned Senior counsel vehemently

submitted that project being one for public purpose and

lands having found to be non-suitable for the intended

project cannot be accepted without consideration of the

unnecessary financial burden on the public exchequer.

e. He further submitted that even if the

suggestions made in the report with regard to raising

the level of the land by land fill is accepted, since

project is to rehabilitate displaced/effected persons by

constructing residential colony they cannot be exposed

to natural calamity of flood like situation which occurs

on every rainy season.

f. Thus, he submitted that the respondent

officials being misled and induced by the land owners

and in collusion filed the initial reports regarding
31

feasibility and proceeded with acquisition. All these

could have been avoided if only the land owners had

disclosed about the location and nature of the lands in

their communications at Annexures-C and D. Thus, he

submits that the land owners have played fraud on the

authorities in they acquiring the lands.

g. It is his further submission that even going by

the contents of Annexures C and D land owners

represented that their lands are predominantly

agricultural lands being cultivated by their family

members and that due to various personal and health

issues they were unable to concentrate on farming and

hence willing to sell the land to prospective buyers. He

submitted that in the said communication the land

owners had even agreed to be compensated in the lines

within prevailing norms of land acquisition. That once

the land owners were clear that their land would be

acquired they have obtained purported conversion

orders in respect of subject lands only with a malafide

intention of seeking exorbitant rate of compensation.

That this Court while passing the order in
32

W.P.No.12699/2021 directing the authorities to consider

the land as converted land while awarding the

compensation, had specifically directed to hear the

MRPL and since there is no compliance to the said

directions, the collusion between the land owners and

KIADB officials in awarding the compensation

considering the lands as converted lands is writ large.

h. He submitted that representations were made

by MRPL vide communication dated 20.12.2022,

04.01.2023, 22.03.2023 seeking KIADB to provide

details to MRPL for its review and records with regard to

approximate rate that would cost in acquiring the lands

of land owners pursuant to orders passed in

W.P.No.12699/2021 and their financial implication.

That opinion was also sought if the subject lands

measuring 49.87 acres could be denotified. However,

there has been no response by the KIADB. KIADB

proceeded to pass the impugned award on 07.07.2023

without reference to the representation made by MRPL.
33

j. In view of the aforesaid circumstances MRPL

made a representation dated 29.09.2023 as per

Annexure-P requesting for change of land and allotment

of alternate land for the purpose of MRPL project which

has not been considered by the respondent authorities.

k. By a memo dated 30.1.2024 filed on behalf

MRPL 19 documents were produced. In that learned

Senior Counsel specifically referred to document No.9

dated 12.05.2006 which is an agreement entered into

between MRPL and KIADB. He pointed out the total cost

of acquisition of the lands payable by MRPL is

Rs.277,87,23,172/- which included service charges

payable to KIADB at 10%. He also referred to clause 8

and 9 of the said document which according to Senior

counsel provided for dropping of acquisition for various

reasons at the instance of the MRPL. He also referred to

document No.19 which is an extract of Karnataka

Industrial Policy, 2014-19 wherein, under the heading

“Policy measures” it is commended that readily available

and adequate extant of land is a prerequisite for

industrial development and the State should focus more
34

on making available allotable industrial lands with

comprehensive infrastructure facility to the project

proponents across the State. He also pointed out the

measures recommended including following up of the

guidelines of Act, 2013 in that emphasis on due care to

be taken to ensure that only waste, barren, karab and

dry land to be acquired for the industrial purposes.

l. Referring to the aforesaid documents learned

Senior counsel submitted that in terms of the contract

as a industrial policy it was the duty cast on the

respondent/authorities to have ensured that the suitable

land was made available for the benefit of the MRPL and

if found otherwise the same was liable to be dropped

from acquisition.

m. Thus, he submitted that in the aforesaid

circumstances a Public Sector Undertaking like MRPL

cannot be compelled to accept the acquisition which is

tainted with misrepresentation, fraud and malafide and

the entire acquisition as well as the award passed on

07.07.2023 requires to be quashed and set aside.
35

n. On the application for impleadment he submitted

that MRPL is the beneficiary of the acquisition and entire cost

of acquisition is borne by MRPL. Therefore it is a necessary

party to the proceedings. He reiterated that despite specific

direction by this Court to notify and hear MRPL before passing

the fresh award no opportunity is given by SLAO. Hence

seeks to allow the application.

o. He relied upon the following citations in support of

his submissions;

(1) ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. VS. G. JAYARAM
REDDY AND ANOTHERS (2011) SCC 608

(2) UDDAR GAGAN PROPERTIES LTD. VS.

SANTH SINGH AND OTHERS (2016) 11 SCC 378

(3) VIDARBA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION VS. SANTHOSH JANBA VARGHNE
AND ANTOHER (2019) SC 650

11. Sri. K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior counsel appearing for

the land owners refuting the contentions and allegations made

by and on behalf of MRPL submitted that;

a. The records made available would reveal that the

entire effort being made by MRPL is only to deny and

deprive the legitimate entitlement of compensation
36

payable to the land owners who have lost their lands

have not been paid their dues despite approaching this

Court by filing several rounds of litigations by filing writ

petitions. He submitted that allegation of fraud and

misrepresentation are mere farce and a false facade

raised in the petition to circumvent the liability of

payment of compensation. He further submits that

MRPL who actively participated in the entire process of

acquisition right from the inception of acquisition has

raised these false allegations of misrepresentation, false

and malafide only when the award has been passed by

the respondent-authorities considering the subject lands

of the land owners as converted lands that too, in

furtherance to the direction issued by this Court in

W.P.No.12699/2021. Thus, he submitted MRPL has not

approached this Court with clean hands requiring to be

non-suited at the threshold.

b. Referring to document produced by the MRPL at

Annexure-D namely, the joint inspection report, he

submitted that the said joint inspection was conducted

by responsible officers of the State who after inspection
37

have found that an extent of 173.67 acres belonging to

land owner and one R.K.Nagendra was suitable for the

project. He submitted that thereafter by letters dated

03.10.2015, the land owner and R.K.Nagendra

addressing to the Managing Director of MRPL and Chief

Executive Officer of KIADB had clearly stated that since

MRPL was in need of lands and that their lands are

situated adjacent to the proposed project could be

acquired. He pointed out that in the said communication

the land owners had clearly stated that their lands are

situated adjacent to Gurupura River having density of

water sources. He also pointed out that the said request

was forwarded with a clear statement that MRPL could

proceed if its suits the requirement. Pointing out the

endorsement made on the letter dated 03.10.2015

wherein, it is written ” please get it checked for

feasibility and contiguous land” he emphasized that the

land owners made no misrepresentation or played any

fraud.

c. Referring to letter dated 7.12.2015 issued by MRPL

he submitted that MRPL itself had requested the Special
38

Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to notify the lands

measuring 176 acres belonging to land owner and

R.K.Nagendra. He also refers to the Government Order

dated 20.02.2016 produced at Annexure-E wherein,

companies request to include the land in Muloor and

Kandwara village having been considered for its

proposed expansion.

d. Thus, he submitted the notifications dated

15.12.2017 and 25.11.2020 were issued acquiring the

lands of the land owners only after satisfaction and

request of the MRPL and that there was no

misrepresentation or fraud by the land owners as

alleged.

e. He submitted that the land owners had obtained

conversion of land usage from agricultural to non-

agricultural purposes between 2003 to 2015 which is

much prior to initiation of process of acquisition. He

submitted that after completion of the acquisition

process the possession of the lands were taken on

01.03.2018. Compensation in respect of agricultural
39

lands were paid on 18.07.2018. The land owners had

approached this Court for determination of

compensation in respect of their lands treating the same

as converted lands. This Court had directed the

authorities in its order dated passed in

W.P.No.12699/2021 to award the compensation treating

the land of the land owners as converted.

f. Adverting to the contention of non-compliance to the

direction of this Court in the aforesaid order of hearing

MRPL before passing the award, learned Senior counsel

referred to the communication dated 13.12.2022 by the

KIADB to General Manager, MRPL produced at

Annexure-H informing MRPL about the order and the

direction to notify MRPL as made by this Court. He also

pointed out that the copy of the order passed by this

Court in the said writ petition was also enclosed for the

reference of MRPL. He submits that in the said letter

Special Land Acquisition Officer had specifically called

upon the MRPL to give its opinion or statement

immediately.

40

g. Further taking through the response of MRPL in their

letter dated 20.12.2022, 4.01.2023 and 22.03.2023

produced at Annexures-J, K and L learned Senior

counsel submitted that MRPL was only concerned with

the additional financial implication in view of 49.87

acres of lands belonging to the land owner to be

compensated treating it as the converted lands and had

therefore sought if it was possible to denotify the same

from the process of acquisition. He submitted that in

view of the communication referred to above issued by

the Special Land Acquisition Officer and duly responded

by the MRPL the requirement of hearing the MRPL has

been complied with.

h. He emphasized that the said communication do not

even refer to any misrepresentation or fraud sought to

be alleged in the writ petition. Thus, he submitted the

allegations of misrepresentation or fraud are raised only

to deny the entitlement of the land owners.

j. Referring to the report at Annexure-G dated

22.12.2022 learned Senior counsel submitted that the
41

said report has been filed by KIADB in its capacity as

the developer with the responsibility of implementing

the project of the MRPL and not as the acquiring

authority. He further submitted that the said report had

been filed upon the opinion of consultant M/s.Alcon

Consulting Engineers engaged by the KIADB. It is his

further submission that the said report cannot be the

basis for quashing the acquisition or the award. At the

most, he submitted that the said report has to be read

as a report of a developer indicating his cost for

developing the lands and the same cannot be extended

to hold that there was a fraud and misrepresentation on

the part of the land owners.

k. As regard the plea for denotification learned Senior

counsel submitted that once the acquisition process is

completed in terms of KIAD Act and the award is passed

there is no provision for denotification. He also

submitted the acquisition is not a consent acquisition

and the same has been pursuant to exercise of power of

eminent domain by the respondent/State. What the

State and its agency does with their land is their lookout
42

once acquired and the same cannot be denotified or

returned to the owners that too after passing of the

award.

l. That the writ petition filed by the MRPL after expiry of

over 6 years of issuance of notification suffers from

delay and laches.

m. He also submits that the challenge is only in respect

of 49.87 acres of land as against 117.67 acres. That the

substantial part of the compensation has already been

paid to the land loosers and there is no substance in the

writ petition.

n. On the question of application to implead MRPL as a

party /respondent in the writ petition filed by the land

owner it is his submission that there is nothing

remained to be determined in the said writ petition and

the same is filed only seeking direction to the

respondent/KIADB to disburse the amount as per the

award dated 16.03.2023. Further, MRPL having been

given opportunity by SLAO before passing award at

7.7.2023 is not a necessary party in the writ petition.
43

o. Learned counsel relies upon the following citations in

support of his submissions;

(1) JOINT COLLECTER RANGAREDDY, DISTRCT
AND ANOTHER VS. D. NARASINGARAO AND OTHERS

-(2015) 3 SCC 695

(2) THOMAS PATRAO SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.
AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY
ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER- ILR 2005 KAR. 4199

12. Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Senior counsel appearing

for the KIADB submitted that;

a. that the writ petition in W.P.No.22685/2023 filed by

the MRPL is seeking quash of preliminary notification

dated 15.12.2017 and the final notification dated

25.11.2020 and for consideration of it, representation.

He submits that no relief is sought against the State or

the KIADB.

b. He submits that the writ petition in

W.P.No.15168/2023 filed by the land owners is seeking

implementation of the award dated 16.03.2023 for

Rs.197,28,34,73,814/- which was reduced by the award

dated 7.7.2023 to Rs.55,69,76,600/-. That the said

award of 07.07.2023 has been approved by the
44

Government on 07.09.2023. He submitted that writ

petition in W.P.No.22685/2023 is filed by the MRPL

seeking quash of award dated 07.07.2023. Thus, he

submits that the State has discharged its function

warranting no interference.

c. He further submitted that prior to acquisition consent

of the land owners were obtained and it is a consent

acquisition made by the State for MRPL and the same is

not in exercise of power of eminent domain. State does

not keep the land for its usage as the same was

acquired for the benefit of MRPL. KIADB is not the

beneficiary of the acquisition. Since the acquisition was

at the instance of the parties, the role of the State as

well as the KIADB is very limited. He emphasized that

the State is giving the lands to the MRPL upon its

request and not to the KIADB for its purposes or for its

objects.

d. Referring to document no. 9 filed by the MRPL

namely MOU dated 12.05.2016 he submitted that the

same MOU pertains to an extent of 1050/- acres of land
45

and the clause 8 and 9 of the said MOU cannot be

extended to the lands subject matter of this petition.

e. He relies upon the following judgments

(i) order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of LAKSHMI TOURISM
CORPORATION VS. LAKE VIEW TOURISM
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER passed in
W.A.No.118/2023 dated 14.11.2022

(ii) SOMASHEKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA reported in 1997 Kant.L.J 410.

13. Sri. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the land

owners supplementing the submissions made by

Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior counsel submitted that;

a. prayer sought by the MRPL in its writ petition is for

quashing of the notifications dated 15.12.2017 and

25.11.2020 to the extent the lands referred to in the

award dated 07.07.2023. He reiterated that the grounds

urged for grant of said reliefs are misrepresentation,

fraud and non-viability of the lands for the project. No

reliefs can be granted on the grounds urged in the writ

petition.

46

b. He further submits that on issuance of final

notification under section 28(4) of the KIAD Act is

issued there is no provision under this Act to denotify

the lands.

c. He submits the acquisition of the subject lands were

made by the respondent/State in exercise of its power

of eminent domain and not by any consent. Consent can

only be given in the form of agreement for the purpose

of passing the award as contemplated under the

provisions of Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. He submits

perusal of notifications reveal that it was not the

consent acquisition. Thus, sought for allowing of the writ

petition filed by the land owners and dismissal of writ

petition filed by MRPL.

ANALYSIS:

14. Heard. Perused the records.

15. The issuance of notifications dated 15.12.2017 and

25.11.2020 and acquisition of lands belonging to the land

owners is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the

possession of acquired lands has been taken and the award
47

has been passed by the respondent authorities. Contents of

notifications and the award passed by SLAO reveal that entire

process of acquisition is in accordance with relevant provisions

of KIAD Act. In other words the lands have been acquired in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 28 of KIAD Act,

award has been passed and possession has been taken and

the acquired lands have vested with the State in the manner

known to law free from all encumbrances.

16. Though an extent of 170.96 acres is acquired under

these notifications for the Phase IV Expansion Project of

MRPL, subject matter of these two writ petitions is only an

extent of 49.87 acres of non agricultural lands belonging to

the land owners.

17. Writ Petition in W.P.No.22685/2023 is for quash of

notifications dated 15.12.2017 and 25.11.2020 issued under

Section 28(4) of KIAD Act, 1966 and also for quash of award

dated 07.07.2023. While writ petition in W.P.No.15168/2023

is for the relief in the nature of direction to the respondent

authorities to disburse the compensation amount of
48

Rs.197,28,34,758/- to the land owners as per the General

Award dated 16.03.2023.

18. On hearing the submissions of the learned Senior counsel

for the parties and on perusal of the records, following points

arise for consideration:

1. Whether MRPL has made out a case for
quashing of notifications dated 15.12.2017 and
25.11.2020 insofar as they relate to lands
referred to in the award dated 07.07.2023 and
consequently the award dated 07.07.2023 on
the grounds as urged in the writ petition?

2. Whether the Landowners are entitled for
direction to the Respondent Authorities to
disburse the compensation amount of
Rs.197,28,34,758/- as per General Award
dated 16.03.2023?

3. Whether MRPL is a necessary party to the
writ petition filed by the land owners?

POINT No.1:

19. At the outset it is necessary to note that the relief sought

by MRPL in its Writ Petition in W.P.No.22685/2023 is primarily

on the grounds that:

49

a. the said parcel of land measuring 170.96 acres has

been acquired at the instance of the land owners who

have perpetuated fraud on the officials of KIADB; made

false representation to MRPL; obtained change of land

usage from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose with

a malafide intention of seeking higher rate of

compensation; and, that the said lands being unviable

for its project.

b. There is no challenge to the acquisition on the

grounds of any illegality or irregularity on the part of

state authorities in exercising the power under the KIAD

Act or the procedure adopted in acquiring the subject

lands. Therefore there is no need to go into the mode

and manner adopted for acquisition of the subject lands

by the respondent-State.

20. Before adverting to the contentions and allegations made

in the writ petition by MRPL attributing fraud and false

representation on the landowners it is necessary at this

juncture to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs T. Suryachandra Rao
50

in Civil Appeal No.4461/2005 reported in AIR 2005 SC 3110

wherein referring to its earlier Judgments the Apex Court has

encapsulated meaning of term “Fraud” and its consequences

under different context, which are as under:

“8. By “fraud” is meant an intention to deceive; whether it
is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself
or from the ill will towards the other is immaterial. The
expression “fraud” involves two elements, deceit and injury
to the person deceived. Injury is something other than
economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether
movable or immovable or of money and it will include and
any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind,
reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or
non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver,
will almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived.

Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or
advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to
the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Dr.
Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963 Supp.
2 SCR 585) and
Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996 (5)
SCC 550).

9. A “fraud” is an act of deliberate deception with the
design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of
another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss.
It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P.
Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994 (1) SCC 1).

10. “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act.
Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct
either by letter or words, which includes the other person
or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a
response to the conduct of the former either by words or
letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself
amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may
also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent
misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a
man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to
believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party
makes representations, which he knows to be false, and
injury enures therefrom although the motive from which
the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An
act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion
51

or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the
others in relation to a property would render the
transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are
synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not
amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable
principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be
perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable
doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v.
Savitri Devi and Ors. (2003 (8) SCC 319).

11. ……..

12. ……..’Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false
representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without
belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be
true or false’.”

13. ……..

14. …..Suppression of a material document would also
amount to a fraud on the court. (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi
Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996 (3) SCC 310) and S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu’s case (supra).

15. “Fraud” is a conduct either by letter or words, which
induces the other person or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the
former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not
fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram
Preeti Yadav’s case (supra).

21. In the light of aforesaid enunciation of law on fraud and

misrepresentation by the Apex Court it is to be seen that if

MRPL has made out its case warranting quashment of

notifications to the extent of lands subject matter of the

petition on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation.

22. Necessary at this juncture to refer to the joint inspection

report produced at Annexure-B, which is a communication

dated 31.08.2015 by the SLAO of KIADB addressed to the
52

Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB. The subject of the said

communication is acquisition of land measuring 173.67 acres

of Kandavara and Muloor village, Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina

Kannada District for industrial area development of the Board.

It also refers to letter dated 01.08.2015 issued by the Special

Deputy Commissioner. The said communication reads as

under:

PÀæ.¸ÀA:J¯ï.J.PÀÆå/¹.Dgï42/2015-16(II) ¢£ÁAPÀ:31.08.2015.

«±ÉõÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
PÀ.PÉÊ.¥Àæ.C.ªÀÄAqÀ½, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

EªÀjUÉ,
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÁÌV zÀ.PÀ.f¯Éè ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÀAzÁªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÀÄƼÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 173.67 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:PÉLJr©/PÉÃAPÀ/¨sÀƸÁé(ªÀÄA)2467/6398/15-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.08.2015.

ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, PÀAzÁªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÀÄƼÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 173.67 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÁjPÁ GzÉÝñÀPÁÌV ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ

1) ²æà Dgï.PÉ. £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ 2) ²æà ¹.¦.eÉ«Äì ¥ÉÆ£ÀߥÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ
C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁªÀÅ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr-

¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÊUÁjPÉUÉ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¸À®Ä AiÉÆÃUÀåªÉÃ?, d«Ää£À vÀgÀºÀ ªÀÄÆ®¨sÆ À vÀ
¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ EvÁå¢UÀ¼À §UÉÎ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÉÊUÁjPÁ
PÉÃAzÀæ EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ dAn ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃRzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄwÛÃj.
CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.08.2015gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄð£À C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÄÀ dAn ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉ
£ÀqɸÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ«vÀ 173-67 JPÉæ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÀ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¸À®Ä
AiÉÆÃUÀåªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F d«Ää£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzsÀå¨sÁUÀzÀ°è §gÀĪÀ EvÀgÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ°è DAiÀÄPÀnÖUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F PÀÄjvÀÄ dAn ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸À¢æ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÄÀ
PÉÊUÉƼÀÀÄzÁVzÉ.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,
¸À»/-

«±ÉõÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ
PÀ.PÉÊ.¥Àæ.C.ªÀÄAqÀ½, ¨ÉÊPÀA¥Ár
ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

53

The joint inspection report which forms part of the said

communication reads as under:

dAn ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢

“«±ÉõÀ ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉ.L.J.r.© C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉ.L.J.r.©
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ f¯Áè PÉÊUÁjPÁ PÉÃAzÀæ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ
¢£ÁAPÀ:20.08.2015gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÀAzÁªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄƼÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è
MlÄÖ 173-67 JPÉæ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¸À®Ä £ÀqɹzÀ dAn ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÁ ªÀgÀ¢.

zÀ.PÀ.f¯Éè ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆç½AiÀÄ PÀAzÁªÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ
¸À.£ÀA.73/1¹1 gÀ°è 1-76 JPÉæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvgÉ ¸À.£ÀA.UÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ «¹ÛÃtð 85-05 JPÉæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÀÄƼÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.87/7 gÀ°è 2-13 JPÉæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¸À.£ÀA.UÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 91-62
JPÉæAiÀÄAvÉ MlÄÖ 173.67 JPÉæ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£À¥Àr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¨sÀƪÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ 1) ²æÃ
Dgï.PÉ. £ÁUÉÃAzÀæ 2)²æÃ.¹.¦.eÉ«Äì ¥ÉÆ£ÀߥÀàgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðAiÀÄPÀ
C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17.07.2015gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ºÁUÀÆ AiÉÆÃUÀå zÀgÀ ¤ÃrzÀÝ°è
d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

F d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÀ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Àr¸À®Ä d«Ää£À vÀgÀºÀ,
ªÀÄÆ®¨sÀÆvÀ ¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼À ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ EvÁå¢UÀ¼À §UÉÎ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼Æ
É A¢UÉ dAn ¸ÀܼÀ
vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä «±ÉõÀ f¯Áè¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.08.2015 gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è
F PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ dAn ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉUÉ ºÁdgÁUÀĪÀAvÉ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ
C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ(f.PÉÊ.PÉÃA) EªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:12.08.2015gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ
§gÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.08.2015gÀAzÀÄ F ªÉÄð£À C¢üPÁjUÀ¼Æ É A¢UÉ ¸À¢æ 173-
67 JPÉæ d«Ää£ÀÄß dAn ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

CfððzÁgÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀ PÀAzÁªÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ 85-05 JPÉæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄƼÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ
91-62 JPÉæ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ RĶÌ, vÀj ¨sÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ ªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÀȶ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F
d«ÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÀrªÉÄ ¸ÀªÀÄvÀmÁÖzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F d«ÄäUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀð ¢QÌ£À°è
ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ -¸ÉÆïÁ¥ÀÄgÀ gÁ¶ëçÃAiÀÄ ºÉzÁÝjAiÀÄ ¸ÀASÉå:13 PÉÌ vÁVPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ
¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ®©ü¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ. d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À zÀQët ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ £À¢AiÀÄÄ
ºÀjAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ, d«ÄäUÉ PÀZÁÑ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¤Ãj£À ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ GvÀÛªÀĪÁV ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ. d«Ää£À zÀQët
¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4-00 Q.«Äà zÀÆgÀzÀ°è §eÉÊ CAvÀgÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ «ªÀiÁ£À ¤¯ÁÝt«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À GvÀÛgÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀÅ C®à¸Àé®à JvÀÛgÀ vÀUÀÄÎUÀ½AzÀ PÀÆrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¥Àæ¸ÁÛ«vÀ 173-67 JPÉæ d«Ää£À°è ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀĹâ,
ZÀZïðUÀ½AzÀ PÀÆrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ«vÀ ¹ÜwAiÀÄAvÉ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ZÀzÀÄjzÀAvÉ
EzÀÄÝ, EvÀgÀ SÁ¸ÀV d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Áé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ°è ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÀÅ DAiÀÄPÀnÖUÉ (PÁA¥ÉPïÖ)
M¼À¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ. d«Ää£À ¥ÀƪÀð ¢QÌ£À°è ºÉÊmÉ£Àë£ï «zÀÄåvï vÀAw ºÁzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ
d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÁé¢üãÀ¥Àr¹ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ¥Àr¸ÀĪÁUÀ §qÁªÀuÉ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ°è ¸À¢æ ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ
«ÄøÀ°qÀ§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MnÖ£À°è
F d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ J¯Áè jÃw¬ÄAzÀ®Æ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ
C©¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¸À¢æ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀƸÁé¢Ã£À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ
PÉÊUÉƼÀÀÄzÁVzÉ.


     C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ               dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ                «±ÉõÀ ¨sÆ
                                                                                 À ¸Áé¢üãÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ
     PÀ.PÉÊ.¥Àæ.C. ªÀÄAqÀ, ¨ÉÊPÀA¥Ár    f¯Áè PÉÊUÁjPÁ PÉÃAzÀæ          PÀ.PÉÊ.¥Àæ.C. ªÀÄAqÀ½, ¨ÉÊPÀA¥Ár
     ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ                      ªÀÄAUÀ¼Æ
                                              À gÀÄ zÀ.PÀ.f¯Éè                 ªÀÄAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ
                                   54




23. Perusal of the aforesaid communication and report would

reveal that SLAO, KIADB Development Officer, Joint Director

District Industrial Centre, Mangaluru conducted joint

inspection and found that the lands including the subject

lands of Kandavara and Muloor Village are Kushki, Thari and

Bhagayutu lands and are more or less level lands situated

near the National Highway No.13 on their Eastern side and

Gurupura river flowing on their Southern side and the Bajpe

International Airport situated about 4 kms away from the said

lands. It is also pointed out that there are some undulation of

lands on the Northern side.

24. Communication dated 03.10.2015 issued by C.P.Jemcy

Ponnappa -land owner and R.K.Nagendra addressed to the

Managing Director -MRPL and Chief Executive Officer of KIADB

produced at Annexure-C reads as under:

55

3 October 2015.

The Managing Director
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited
Kuthethor
PO via Katipalla
Mangalore 575 030.

Respected Sir,

Subject: Land Requirement for Rehabilitation and Resettlement for M/s
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited (MRPL)

It is learnt from the recent media reports that MRPL is need of 1000
acres of land for its expansion of its project which is preferred to be
adjacent to the existing project. Since this going to be a very large
land acquisition proposition for MRPL, there may be in need of huge
land for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the land losers in it’s near
vicinity land

We, Mr.CPJemcy Ponappa and Mr.RK Nagendra, being an agriculturist
family are holding around 250 acres of land in Kandavara and Mulur
Villages, Gurpura Hobli, Mangalore Taluk. Due to various personal and
health issues we are unable to concentrate on farming and hence we
are willing to sell the land to any prospective buyer. Since we come to
understand that MRPL procures land through the (Karnataka Industrial
Area Development Board) KIADB, it would be appropriate for MRPL
and KIADB, to consider the possibility of buying our land for the
purpose mentioned herein if suits their requirement.

The land is situated at a distance of 5km from MRPL in
Kandavara and Mulur Villages, Gurpura, and the land is adjacent to the
Gurpura River. The area has a good density of water source and MRPL
can consider the rehabilitation township for its land losers, with no
issues relating to drinking water and connectivity, this land also
abutting the National Highway (Mangalore Solapur Highway). The
other benefits of the land includes near by religious establishments,
schools, colleges etc. Our lands located at Kandavara and Mulur
Villages, have already been jointly inspected upon by the Development
Officer, Joint Director, Industrial Centre, Mangalore and The Special
Land acquisition officer KIADB Bykampadi Mangalore, vide letter dated
31.08.2015 No S1.No.LA/C.R./42/2015-16(II), on the orders of
Executive board of KIADB. Their opinion is favorable to industrial area
development and township.

Since this land belonging to our family members being a
single plot there will be no major issues relating to execution of land
acquisition by MRPL. In this regard we will be willing to sell thus land
to KIADB provided we are compensated adequately in lines with
present norms for land acquisition. We would like to contribute out
land for cause of Nation building and employment generation through
industrialization.

We request you to forward your interest, if it suits your requirement to
us through KIADB.


Thanking You

(CP Jemcy Ponappa)                             (RK Nagendra)
4th Block, By pass Road,                      Thyagaraj Road,
Kushala nagara Kodagu District            14 Block, kushalnagara,
                                               Kodagu District
                                  56


25. Perusal of the said communication would also reveal that

the land owner and said R.K.Nagendra have also stated about

the location of land, as stated in the joint inspection report

and have also agreed for acquisition of lands subject to they

being compensated adequately. The last sentence of the said

communication reads that “we request you to forward

your interest, if it suits your requirement to us through

KIADB”.

26. Endorsement is found on the top of said communication

at Annexure-B addressed to Managing Director of MRPL

wherein it is written “please get it checked for feasibility

and contiguous land”.

27. Communication dated 07.12.2015 produced at Annexure-

D would reveal that MRPL had requested to notify the

aforesaid land measuring 176 acres in Muloor and Kandavara

villages offered by land owner Jemcy Ponnappa and

R.K.Nagendra.

57

28. The Government Order at Annexure-E dated 20.02.2016

also refers to the request made by MRPL to include lands in

Thenkayekaru, Muloor and Kandavara Villages for their

proposed expansion which has been approved by the

Government.

29. Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 28(1)

of the KIAD Act on 20.12.2016. The Final Notifications dated

15.12.2017, 25.11.2020 were issued under Section 28(4) of

KIAD Act.

30. The Notifications referred to above, make it very clear

that the aforesaid lands were notified for acquisition and are

accordingly acquired by the respondent authorities in exercise

of powers under Section 28 of the KIAD Act for the expansion

project of MRPL.

31. The aforesaid communications leading upto issuance of

aforesaid notifications would indicate that there is complete

transparency in the communications ensued between all the

stakeholders atleast with regard to the nature, location and

situation of the subject lands. Said communications have

been addressed directly to MRPL and as already noted
58

endorsement found on the communication stating “Please

get it checked for feasibility and contiguous land”

indicate that MRPL has also been part of verification of the

situation and feasibility of the subject lands. Learned Senior

counsel Sri.K.G.Raghavan submitted, and which is not denied

by MRPL, that MRPL is located in one of the villages namely

Kuthethoor Village which is just about 4 to 5 kilometers away

from Muloor and Kandavara Village.

32. Communications have ensued between the parties from

August 2015 till issuance of notification on 15.12.2017.

Possession of land has been admittedly taken on 01.03.2018.

Disputes and differences regarding quantum of compensation

arose on and from 03.07.2019 when the land owners were

informed that compensation will be paid under the Act, 1894

and continued upto passing of order dated 21.10.2022 in

W.P.No.12699/2021 by this Court directing determination of

compensation afresh treating the lands as converted lands.

In the said order this Court has reserved liberty to

respondent-SLAO to notify and hear MRPL before passing

fresh award.

59

33. Thereafter KIADB communicated the aforesaid order of

this Court to MRPL seeking its response. Even as could be

seen infra, MRPL even in all its communications dated

20.12.2022, 04.01.2023 and 22.03.2023 issued in response

to the letter of KIADB till filling of the present writ petition,

has not whispered anything about alleged misrepresentation,

fraud or any malafide on the part of the land owners. There is

also no whisper with regard to lands being unviable. The only

concern expressed by MRPL is enhanced cost of acquisition

and its financial implication.

34. Much of the submissions are made adverting to the

liberty reserved in favour of the respondent authorities in the

order dated 21.10.2022 in WA.No.12699/2021 to notify and

hear MRPL before passing the fresh/new award and contended

that no such opportunity as directed by this Court was

afforded to MRPL depriving it of its right of being heard

resulting in deprivation of principles of natural justice.

35. It is contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for

MRPL that non compliance of the direction given by the

learned Single Judge in order dated in W.P.No.12699/2021 is
60

breach of its entitlement to be heard. MRPL being beneficiary

of the project is a necessary party both in the proceedings

before the SLAO and this Court.

36. Necessary at this juncture to refer to communication

dated 13.12.2022 produced at Annexure-H addressed by

SLAO to MRPL which reads as under:

No.LAQSR3/2016-17/III/709 Date:13.12.2022

To,
General Manager (HR-Admin)
MRPL, Kuthethuru P.O. Via Katipalla,
Mangaluru-575 030.

Sir,

Sub: MRPL 4th Stage Extension Project – Land acquisition under KIADB
Act 1966- Mulur village Sy No.49/A6 etc., total extent 27.315 Acre and
in Kandavara village Sy. No.65/5 etc., total Extent 22.55 acres –
dispute in compensation payment-W.P. No. 12699/2021 (LA KIADB)
order dated 21-10-2022- implementation-reg

Ref: Judgement dated: 21-10-2022 passed in W.P. No:12699/2021
(LA-KIADB) passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru.

Please find herein enclosed copy of the Judgement passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P. No. 12699/2021
(LA-KIADB) dated:21-10-2022.

The Writ Petition was filed by Mr. Jemcy Ponnappa C.P. and another
making the State Government of Karnataka and 3 others as
respondents. The SLAO, Baikampady, Mangaluru is the 3rd
Respondent. The Writ Petition was filed against the Award dated: 18-
11-2020 passed, fixing the award amount of Rs 15,37,36,459/-
treating the acquired lands are as agricultural lands by the SLAO
Baikampady, Mangaluru in accordance with directions issued in W.P.
33053/2019 order dated 16-12-2019 against the acquisition of land for
the MRPL 4th stage extension Project in Mulur village in Sy. No.49/A6
etc., total extent 27.315 acres and in Kandavara village in Sy. No.65/5
etc., total extent 22.55 acres of land.

The Writ Petitioners have contended before the Hon’ble High Court of

Karnataka at Bengaluru that the acquired lands are converted lands

hence they should be compensated at converted rates. The High Court

has upheld their contention and quashed the award passed by the
61

SLAO and directed to pass a fresh award taking into consideration of

converted rate of lands within two months of the date of order time

taking into consideration the date of receipt of certified copy of the

said order.

In the order dated it has stated as “Liberty is also reserved in favour of

concerned respondents to notify and hear the acquisition allotte i.e.,

Mangaluru Refineries and Petro Chemicals Limited before passing the

fresh/ new award as directed above.”

The copy of the earlier award dated: 18-11-2020 is enclosed for your

perusal and needful action.

Therefore I request you to give your opinion/ statement in detail

immediately.

Thanking You,

Yours faithfully
Sd/-

Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB, Bykampady
Mangalore.

37. As could be seen the said communication is in compliance

with the “liberty reserved in favour of the respondents “to

notify MRPL about award to be passed”. By the said

communication MRPL has not only been notified as directed

but has to be called by the SLAO to file its

response/statement in detail.

62

38. In response to the said communication MRPL issued

communications dated 20.12.2022, 04.01.2023 and

22.03.2023 produced at Annexures-J, K and L which reads as

under:

Ref:Admin-1856/Cab-X1-61 Date: 20.12 2022

To,
Special Land Acquisition Officer,
KIADB, Baikampady,
Mangalore

Sir,

Sub: W.P. No. 12699/2021 (LA-KIADB) order dated:

Ref: KIADB letter No LAQ SR 3/2016-17/III/709 dated
13-12-2022 addressed to MRPL

We are in receipt of the subject letter from KIADB
requesting MRPL for its opinion/statement on the judgement passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka for the land being acquired
by KIADB in Survey nos 49/A6 etc in Mulur Village – total extent of
27.315 Acres and Survey nos 65/5 etc in Kandavara Village – total
extent of 22.55 Acres.

As the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the contention of the
petitioners and directed KIADB to pass fresh award considering the
land being acquired as converted land within 2 months, KIADB is
requested to provide the following details for MRPL’s review and
records

1. Approximate rate per acre of converted land at the referred area

2. In case MRPL decides to forfeit the subject land of 49.87 Acres
from the acquisition process:

a. Will there be any major impact on the R & R layout being
prepared by KIADB

b. Will there be any additional financial implication on MRPL

c. Is it possible to exclude the land from the acquisition
process

KIADB is requested to furnish above details for us to forward our
opinion as desired vide above letter.

Thanking you,
For Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited

Sd/- 20/12/22
Chief General Manager (Administration)

Cc. Group General Manager – HR MRPL.

63

Annexure -K

Ref:Admin-1868/Cab-X1-61 Date:04.01.2023

To,
Special Land Acquisition Officer
KIADB, Baikampady, Mangalore – 575 011

Sir,

Attn:Mr Binoy P.K.

Subject: Judgement dated passed by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.
No. 12699/2021 (LA-KIADB) regarding 49.865 Acres in R & R Colony
of MRPL Phase IV Project Mulur & Kandavara Villages

Ref: 1. KIADB Letter ref. LAC SR 3/2016- 17/11/709
dated 13.12 2022
2 MRPL letter ref; Admin-1856/Cab-X1-61
dated 20.12.2022
3 KIADB Letter ref: LAQ SR 3/2016-17/III/748
dated 23.12.2022 on the above subject

This has reference to the above KIADB letters requesting
MRPL for its opinion/statement on the Hon’ble High Court order
wherein the High Court has directed KIADB to pass a fresh award
taking into consideration of converted rate of lands for the 49.865
Acres of land in Mulur & Kandavra Villages. Please also refer letter
dated 23.12.2022 wherein KIADB have arrived at a cost of Rs 53.73 Cr
towards acquisition of 49. 865 Acres considering the land as converted
land.

As you are aware Rs 80 Lakh/Acre was fixed as Land
compensation by the District Administration for the land being
acquired for MRPL Phase IV Project and the same is being disbursed by
KIADB for all the eligible land owners. However, as the land rate
worked out by KIADB is higher than the rate fixed by the District
Administration, MRPL is not in agreement to pay higher land
compensation to this land parcel.

Considering the above, subject land parcel of 49.865 Acre be De-
notified from the acquisition process at R & R Colony in Mulur &
Kandavara Villages. Also, necessary communication be furnished to
the Hon’ble High Court and the land owners, accordingly.

Thanking you.

For Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, 4

Sd/-(04.01.2023)
General Manager-Administration

Cc:

1 Development Officer, KIADB, Mangalore
2 CEO & EM, KIADB, Khanija Bhavana, Bangalore

3. Group General Manager – HR, MRPL.

64

Annexure -L

Ref:MRPL/Admin-1905/Cab-X1-61 Date: 22.03.2023

To,
The Special Deputy Commissioner
KIADB. Khanija Bhavana.

Bangalore-01.

Sir,

Subject: De-notification of 49.865 Acres in R & R Colony of MRPL
Phase IV Project in Mulur & Kandavara Villages in DK District.

Ref: 1. KIADB Letter ref: LAQ SR 3/2016-17/III/748
dated 23.12. 2022

2. MRPL letter ref: Admin-1868/Cab-X1-81 dated 04.01.2023 on the
subject

This is in continuation to above referred letter dated 04.01.2023 from
MRPL communicating KIADB to de-notify the referred land parcel at
the proposed R. & R colony

In this regard, KIADB is requested to complete necessary formalities
for de-notification and update MRPL on the actions taken by KIADB, for
its information and records.

Thanking you.

For Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited,

Sd/-

General Manager – Administration

Cc:

1. SLAO, KIADB, Mangalore

2. Development Officer, KIADB, Mangalore

3. Chief General Manager – Admin, MRPL.

39. Perusal of the aforesaid communication of SLAO and the

response by MRPL as extracted hereinabove would clearly

indicate all that MRPL was concerned was with regard to

additional financial implications in granting compensation in

respect of 49.87 acres of land belonging to the land owners

and its request to exclude said parcel of land from acquisition
65

if possible and nothing more. As rightly pointed out by learned

Senior counsel for the land owners, there is not even a

whisper in these communications with regard to so called

false representation, fraud or malafide either on the part of

the land owners or on the part of officials of KIADB. There is

also no whisper with regard to land being unviable and not

feasible for the purpose of the project to be the reason for

dropping from acquisition as sought to be made out in the

writ petition.

40. There is no explanation of any nature whatsoever

regarding MRPL not choosing to participate in the process of

passing fresh award despite being notified by SLAO. No

explanation regarding MRPL not taking any measures in

safeguarding its own interest. After all the thrust of the MRPL

is protecting public exchequer from being saddled with

additional financial burden. Further it is also the case of MRPL

that affected persons, who are going to be rehabilitated in the

subject lands, have made representations to MRPL insisting it

not to take the subject lands. If such representations were

received by MRPL, why did it not take any action or atleast

mention the same in its communications referred to above is
66

not explained. A larger question also required to be answered

by MRPL as to how did it not notice atleast for over six years

from the date of preliminary notification, that subject lands

getting water logged during rainy season. Gurupura river

flowing by southern side of the subject land and the same

getting flooded year after year during the rainy season as

contended by MRPL cannot be a matter of suppression or false

representation. MRPL cannot be heard to be naïve of these

aspects of the matter which is admittedly located just within 4

to 5 kilometers away from the subject land.

41. Necessary also to note that the total extent of land

acquired for MRPL is in excess of 1050 acres. The dispute in

these petitions in only to an extent of 49.87 acres. As such,

the contentions vehemently urged on behalf of MRPL that this

parcel of land is not viable and the same would saddle the

public body and the public exchequer with additional financial

burden also cannot be countenanced.

42. Further as rightly pointed out by learned Senior counsel

for the land owners report at Annexure-G has come up on

22.12.2022 which is subsequent to passing of the order dated
67

21.10.2022 by this Court in W.P.No.12699/2021 whereby this

Court had directed passing of the fresh award treating the

lands to be converted lands.

43. Perusal of the said report would reveal that the same is

prepared by M/s.Alcon Consulting Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

Bengaluru who is engaged by the KIADB for purpose of

preparing a detailed project report along with technical and

economical viability in respect of 95.2 acres of land.

Paragraph 4 of the said report under the heading

“Development Works for Formation of Residential Layout”

refers to said extent of 95.2 acres of land being in a valley

region with river Gurupura flowing from East to West having

HFL of 5.65 to 5.75 meters requiring bringing up level of the

layout to HFL of adjacent river by raising to the extent of

3.0m to avoid flood and formation of ponds. It also refers to

additional cost of Rs.49.56 crores for the purpose of raising

ground level and Rs.35.45 crores requiring to retain and keep

intact the peripheral embankment of the layout by building a

retaining wall. The said report as rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel for the land owners is only a report with

regard to cost involved in the development of the project.
68

The report does not support the case of MRPL with regard to

land being unviable or unfeasible for the project. In any

event the said report is issued through KIADB nor as an

acquiring authority but admittedly as an agency which is

engaged to implement the project.

44. Appropriate at this juncture also to refer the
Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) dated 12.05.2016
which is entered into between MRPL and KIADB, produced at
Document No.9 of the memo dated 30.01.2024 on behalf of
MRPL wherein the said document is entered into broadly
laying down the terms with regard to cost of acquisition and
implementation of the project. The lands in Muloor and
Kandavara village also form part of said MOU. The total
extent of the land subject matter of said MOU is 1050 acres
total cost estimated and payable by MRPL is
Rs.277,87,23,172/- which includes 10% service charges
payable to KIADB. Clauses 8 and 9 of the said MOU read as
under:

“8. (a) If the acquisition proceedings are dropped in case of SUC’s due to
ommissions and commissions of Board /Govt, including delay in issue of the
notification under section 28(1) or 28(4) of the KIAD Act., the entire amount of
land cost deposited by the company is to be refunded.

(b) If the acquisition proceedings are dropped due to various reasons at the
instance of the beneficiary company before issue of under Sec.28(1) the
forfeiture is limited to 10% of the amount paid towards the cost of acquisition.
69

(C) If the acquisition proceedings are dropped at the instance of beneficiary
company after issue of preliminary Notification under Sec.28(1) and before
issue of final Notification under Sec.28(4) of the KIAD Act, 20% of the amount
shall be forfeited out of the amount remitted by the company towards 40% cost
of acquisition”.

9(a) If the acquisition proceedings are dropped due to various reasons at the
instance of beneficiary company after issue of final notification under Section
28(4), the forfeiture is limited to 20% of the amount paid towards the cost of
acquisition. But the balance 80% amount remitted by the company could be
refunded only after allotment of said land to any other industries and on
realisation of the cost of land.

b) If any change is required in individual case, such proposals be examined
based on the merits of each case and grounds of equity and such proposals
shall be placed before the Board for consideration”.

45. The aforesaid documents leave no doubt that MRPL and

KIADB were aware of the nature of the land to be acquired

and the responsibility and the consequences of the terms of

the contract entered into between the two even as on

12.05.2016. At any rate these documents, correspondence

would not give any ground for quashing of acquisition or

setting aside of the award as sought for by MRPL.

46. The allegations regarding land owners obtaining

conversion orders with a malafide intention of seeking higher

compensation as made by MRPL is also unfounded. Learned

Senior counsel for the land owners submitted a chart along

with a sketch at the time of arguments in furtherance to

statement of objections providing details of the applications
70

made seeking conversion of the lands, dates of challan

regarding payment of necessary fees and orders of

conversion. It is seen that the challan dates for conversion

are 15.03.2003, 10.10.2008, 05.10.2015, 20.11.2015,

04.01.2017. The date of orders of conversion are

18.03.2003, 10.10.2008, 05.10.2015 and 04.01.2017. In any

event plea of land owners of their land having been converted

and the same to be treated as such for the purpose of

determination of compensation has been accepted by this

Court in its order dated 21.10.2022 in W.P.No.12699/2021

has attained finality. The said question cannot be gone into in

this petition.

47. As already noted despite SLAO notifying the MRPL

regarding said order in writ petition and calling upon the MRPL

to file its statement, for the reasons best known MRPL has

conspicuously remained silent. MRPL being a Public Sector

Undertaking ought to have discharged its public trust

obligation with due diligence. If it had considered itself a

necessary party concerned about saving public exchequer

ought to have participated in the proceedings, taken all steps

required under law, even challenging the award as provided
71

under law before the competent authority. MRPL has done

nothing except now filing this writ petition on a completely

new and brought up theory of fraud, false representation and

malafide that too after such a long lapse of time.

48. Interestingly respondent-KIADB has distanced itself from

the entire controversy. However, a feeble attempt is made in

its scanty statement of objections by stating that the land

owners have misrepresented about the suitability of the land

to the project and that a contract arrived at between the

parties under misrepresentation is neither executable nor

valid. It has sought dismissal of the writ petition filed by

MRPL. Appropriate at this juncture to also refer to statement

of objections filed by respondent-KIADB to the writ petition in

W.P.No.15168/2023 filed by the land owners wherein as

already noted KIADB has not taken any definite stand with

regard to passing of the award dated 16.03.2023. It has

neither denied nor admitted passing of the said award dated

16.03.2023. It has merely produced the award dated

07.07.2023 and has contended if the land owners were

aggrieved they could seek enhancement of the same before

appropriate forum. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Shashikiran
72

Shetty appearing for KIADB had categorically submitted that

the State and the KIADB have merely acted upon the request

made by both land owners and MRPL who had requested the

State and the KIADB to acquire their land. That the

acquisition was a consent acquisition and not in exercise of

power of eminent domain. Both the parties having consented

cannot retract from their position so as to make the State and

the KIADB answerable to their actions. He further submitted

KIADB pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding

entered into between MRPL and itself is entitled for its service

charges for the purpose of developing and implementing the

project. He however submitted that State under Section 4 of

the KIAD Act is vested with power to denotify the land

acquired which power is recognized by the Division Bench of

this Court in the case of Lakshmi Tourism Corporation

(supra). He further submits that issue with regard to power

of the State to denotify need not be gone into as the MRPL

has sought for quashing of notification and award on the

grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The stand of the

respondent-KIADB in the matter in the considered opinion of

this Court is neither in justification of acquisition nor against
73

it. It has simply taken a stand that it has a very limited role

of developing the land which is acquired by the State for the

purpose of project of MRPL and nothing else. In other words

it has distanced itself from the controversies raised by both

the MRPL and land owners. State on the other hand has

neither filed any statement of objection nor has made its

stand clear in the controversy.

49. From the holistic reading of the aforesaid material it

cannot be said the land owners have perpetuated fraud by

making false representation knowingly, recklessly and

carelessly thereby have induced MRPL and the officers of the

respondent authorities to acquire the subject land as sought

to be contended. The allegation of collusion between the land

owners and officials of KIADB also cannot be countenanced in

view of active participation of MRPL in satisfying itself with

regard to location and nature of the land further requesting

the Government to acquire the said parcel of land.

50. Thus, in view of the above material records it cannot be

accepted that MRPL and the officials of KIADB were misled

and induced by the land owners. Reliance placed by learned
74

Senior counsel for MRPL on the Judgments of the Apex Court

in the cases of Royal Orchid Hotels Ltd., and Uddar Gagan

Properties Ltd., (supra) are of no avail to the fact situation

of the case.

51. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis this Court is of the

considered view that MRPL has not made out any grounds for

granting of relief as sought for. Point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

52. However, since the KIADB in the statement of objections

has clearly stated that it would consider the

request/representation of MRPL for allotment of alternate land

in accordance with law, there is no requirement of issuing any

direction in that regard.

POINT No.2:

53. Though landowners in their Writ petition in

W.P.No.15168/2023 have sought for the relief in the nature of

direction to the respondent authority to disburse the

compensation amount of Rs.197,28,34,758/- as per the

General Award dated 16.03.2023, necessary at this juncture

to note that award dated 07.07.2023 was brought on record
75

by the respondent authorities in their statement of objections

as per Annexure-R-1. In the said award dated 07.07.2023

amount determined is Rs.55,69,76,660/-. There is no

Challenge to this award dated 07.07.2023.

54. The basis on which the said relief is sought in

W.P.No.15168/2023 is that the land owners had approached

this Court by filing writ petition No.33053/2019 against the

endorsement and communication dated 03.07.2019 and

14.06.2019 by which the land owners were informed that the

compensation be paid to them under the Act, 1894 and not

under the Act, 2013. This Court allowing the said writ petition

by its order dated 01.03.2019 directed the respondent

authorities to pass the award under the Act, 2013. Alleging

non compliance of the said order land owners initiated

contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.174/2020 in which

proceedings a General Award dated 18.11.2020 was filed by

the respondent authorities treating the lands as agricultural

lands. This constrained the land owners to file another writ

petition in W.P.No.12699/2021. This Court by order dated

21.10.2022 while setting aside the said General Award dated

18.11.2020 directed the respondents to pass fresh award
76

under Section 30 of KIAD Act read with the provisions of Act,

2013 treating the lands of the land owners as converted lands

within two months thereof. Alleging non compliance of the

said order land owners initiated contempt proceedings

C.C.CNo.364/2023 along with the statement of objection the

respondent No.3 had filed the General Award dated

16.03.2023 wherein it had determined the compensation

payable at Rs.197,28,34,758/-. The said award is produced at

Annexure-D to the writ petition obtained by the land owners

under the Right to Information Act. Allegation of the land

owners is that the said award has not been given effect to

resulting in violation of rights of the land owners conferred

under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

55. Statement of objections were filed by KIADB wherein

there is no reference to the award dated 16.03.2023 produced

at Annexure-D of the writ petition. However, the same refers

to an award dated 07.07.2023 passed by SLAO determining

the compensation at Rs.55,69,76,660/- as per Annexure -R-1

and its approval by the State Government on 07.09.2023. A

specific plea is made in the statement of objection by the

respondent authorities that if the land owners are not satisfied
77

with the award passed on 07.07.2023 they are at liberty to

seek enhancement of the same before appropriate forum in

accordance with law.

56. Necessary also to refer that an application in

I.A.No.3/2023 was filed by the land owners seeking direction

to release the amount. Learned counsel for KIADB had

sought time to seek instructions from the respondent-KIADB if

the amount determined in the award dated 07.07.2023 could

be released to the land owners, matter was accordingly

adjourned on two occasions. On 23.09.2023 learned counsel

appearing for KIADB submitted that KIADB was not in a

position to release the amount as the MRPL for whose benefit

the land was acquired was not willing to take possession of

the land. However, a submission was made that given a

month’s time KIADB would release the amount of

compensation determined under the award dated 07.07.2023.

The said stance of the respondent -KIADB was opposed by the

counsel for the land owners. This Court by its order dated

23.09.2023 taking into consideration of the submission made

by the respondent -KIADB that award amount determined

under award dated 07.07.2023 would be released and also
78

taking into consideration the contents of statement of

objections that if land owners were not satisfied they could

seek for enhancement of compensation before appropriate

forum, and keeping open the question with regard to

enhancement of compensation in appropriate proceedings

before competent authority, this Court had permitted the

respondent-KIADB to deposit Rs.55,69,76,660/- as per

Annexure-R-1 within four weeks before this Court.

Accordingly, KIADB has deposited the said amount on

12.10.2023 by way of a Demand Draft bearing No.902071 of

Union Bank of India, Race Course Road, Bengaluru and the

same is directed to be deposited in any Nationalised Bank in

an interest accruing account. MRPL has filed application in

I.A.No.2/2023 seeking to implead itself as a party respondent

in the said writ petition.

57. Learned counsel for the land owners had vehemently

submitted that when once an award is passed 16.03.2023

determining the compensation payable at Rs.197,28,34,758/-

the SLAO would become functus officio and cannot alter the

said award. Therefore it was contended that the subsequent

award dated 07.07.2023 is nonest in the eye of law. It is also
79

contended the said award dated 07.07.2023 has not taken

into consideration the interest component and also

requirement of provisions of Act, 2013 of paying the award

amount within 60 days.

58. As already noted in the statement of objections filed by

respondent-KIADB there is neither denial of passing of the

General Award dated 16.03.2023 produced as Annexure-D

nor any admission thereon. However, the respondent-KIADB

has furnished the award dated 07.07.2023 produced at

Annexure-R-1 wherein compensation has been determined at

Rs.55,69,76,660/-. The said conduct of the respondent

authorities requires much to be answered by them. In the

normal circumstances in the absence of any denial to the

passing the award at Annexure-D, the same had to be given

effect to, considering the checkered history of this matter.

However, considering the huge difference between the

amounts determined at Annexure-D General Award dated

16.03.2023 and Annexure-R-1 award dated 07.07.2023 which

is Rs.197,28,34,758/- and Rs.55,69,76,660/- respectively and

also in view of there being no challenge by the land owners to

said award dated 07.07.2023, this Court is of the considered
80

view that liberty be reserved to the land owners to challenge

the subsequent award dated 07.07.2023 or to seek

appropriate remedy as provided under the relevant provisions

of law before a competent authority. However, since

pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2023 passed by this Court,

amount of Rs.55,69,76,660/- has been deposited by

respondent-KIADB, the said amount be released in favour of

the land owners.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

POINT No.3:

59. An application in I.A.No.2/2023 has been filed by MRPL

seeking itself to implead itself as party -respondent No.5 in

W.P.No.15168/2023 contending itself to be a necessary party

being beneficiary of the acquisition. Reliance is placed on the

Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vidarbha

Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) to contend

that MRPL being beneficiary is entitled to participate in the

proceedings pertaining to compensation and that award dated

07.07.2023 has been passed without hearing the MRPL. It is

further submitted that since there was a direction by the Co-
81

ordinate Bench of this Court while passing order dated

21.10.2022 in W.P.No.12699/2021 to the respondent-

KIADB/SLAO to provide an opportunity of hearing to MRPL

before passing the fresh award. This point has been

addressed while referring to the communication dated

13.12.2022 produced at Annexure-H issued by SLAO to MRPL

and subsequent communications issued by MRPL dated

20.12.2022, 04.01.2023 and 22.03.2023 produced at

Annexures J, K and L which are extracted hereinabove. MRPL

was supplied with the order passed by this Court dated

21.10.2022 in W.P.No.12699/2021 by SLAO who had called

upon MRPL for its response. MRPL for the reasons best known

merely restricted itself to mere issuing the response as found

at Annexures J, K and L above. There was no impediment of

any nature whatsoever for MRPL to have participated itself in

the process of passing of the award by SLAO on 07.07.2023

or to have challenged the same in the manner specifically

provided under relevant law before the competent authority.

In view of the material available on record MRPL cannot be

heard to say that it did not have an opportunity to participate

in the award proceedings or it was deprived of its right to be
82

heard. In that view of the matter MRPL cannot now seek to

implead in the writ petition challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded. In any event the writ petition of land

owners is only seeking direction to the respondent authorities

to disburse the amount already determined. There is no

question of assessing or determining the process of passing

the award involved in the writ petition.

60. Needless to state it is always open for MRPL, if so advised,

to challenge the quantum of compensation awarded to the

land owners in the manner known to law before the

competent authority.

61. For the reasons aforesaid no grounds made out to

implead MRPL as party respondent to W.P.No.15168/2023.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

62. Before parting it is necessary to advert to the

submissions made across the Bar as to the power and

authority of the State and KIADB to denotify the land acquired

under KIAD Act, 1966. Though in the instant petitions same

need not be gone into as the situation of denotification has
83

not arisen but would be useful in this regard to refer to

position of law that exist as on this date.

63. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD

VS. M. MAHADEVAPPA reported in 2014 SCC Online Kar.

1018 adverting to the contention regarding provision under

KIAD Act to denotify the land when the acquisition is

completed, at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of its Judgment while

rejecting a review petition has held as under:

“6. The main contentions in the review petitions are that
the finding of this Court based on the submissions of the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the KIADB that
there is no provision under the KIADB Act to denotify the
land when once the acquisition was completed was
factually in correct and that the other submission that
when once the land is acquired, the owners are entitled
to compensation is also contrary to the Judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jilubhai Nanbhai
Khachar v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 Supp (1)
SCC 596. Therefore, on these two grounds the review
petitions are filed.

7. Section 4 of the KIADB Act reads as hereunder:

“4. Alteration of industrial area: The State Government
may at any time, by notification, exclude from any
industrial area, any area or include therein any additional
area, as may be specified in such notification”.

8. On perusal of Section 4 of the Act, we are of the view
that the Government has power for issuing a notification
to exclude any area from Industrial Area or including
thereon any additional area as may be specified in such
notification. But Section 4 of the Act does not empower
the Government to denotify the land, which was acquired
earlier and possession is taken by the Government and
84

delivered to the beneficiary. Therefore, we are of the
view that Section 4 of the KIADB Act does not empower
the Government to denotify the land, which is acquired
and award is passed. At best Section 4 of the Act would
come to the aid of the Government to exclude an area
from the Industrial Area and include an area and utilize
the same for any other public purpose and it empowers
the Government to include an additional area as an
Industrial area, which only says that an Industrial Area
Corporation can be extended by acquiring additional
extent of land. Therefore, we are of the view that Section
4 has no application to the present case”.

64. Division Bench of this Court in the case of H.R.Jagadish

and other Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and

others reported in (2014) 3 Kant. L.J.666(DB) wherein

while considering challenge to an acquisition, the Division

Bench referring to provisions of Section 3 and 4 of KIAD Act

at paragraph 5 has held as under:

“5. Since the argument of the appellants is based on the
provisions of Section 3 of the KIAD Act and the
provisions of Section 4 are also relevant, the text of
those provisions may be quoted hereunder:

“3. Declaration of industrial areas.- (1) The State
Government may, by notification, declare any area in the
State to be an industrial area for the purposes of this
Act. (2) Every such notification shall define the limits of
the area to which it relates.

4. Alteration of industrial area- The State Government
may at any time, by notification, exclude from any
industrial area, any area, or include therein any
additional area, as may be specified in such notification.”

Admittedly, the provisions for acquisition of lands are
separate and distinctly enacted in Section 28 of the KIAD
85

Act. Therefore, the process and consideration for
declaring any area in the State to be industrial area for
the purpose of the Act are distinct and the process
precedes the acquisition of land. Between the operation
of both the provisions of Section 3 and Section 28, there
are provisions of Section 4, which permit exclusion of
any area or inclusion of any additional area in the
industrial area declared under Section 3.”

65. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

THOMAS PATRO (supra) wherein at paragraphs 25 and 27 this

Court has held as under;

“25. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that though
the land gets vested when the declaration was issued,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation only after
acquisition of the land is complete under Sec.29 of the
Act. The State Government cannot be compelled to
acquire the land after its vesting when it was no longer
possible to effectuate the intended purposed of
acquisition. Till possession is not taken, the land owner
is not entitled for compensation in respect of the
notified lands”.

27. Thus, the State Government is
competent to cancel the notifications issued under
Section 28(2) and (4) of the KIADB Act by virtue of its
power under Section 21 of the Karnataka General
Clauses Act and this power can be exercised before
taking possession of the lands. The State Government
may also exclude that area from industrial area by
issuing a notification under Section 4 of the KIADB Act”.

66. Similar view is taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in the case of MOOLA INVESTMENT (INDIA)

PRIVATE LTD. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
86

reported in 2015 SCC ONLINE KAR.5089 wherein at

paragraph 4(A)(ii)(iv) has held as under;

“Par.4.(A) (ii) The scheme of acquisition of land
envisaged under the provisions of 1966 Act is a bit in
variance with that of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act,
1894, so far as vesting of the acquired land in the State
is concerned. Ordinarily, under the 1894 Act, the land
will vest in the State once the award is passed and
possession is taken, subject to certain exceptions which
may not be of much relevance for our discussion. In the
case of acquisition under the 1966 Act, the land will vest
in the State once the Final Notification is issued u/s
28(4) and the question of taking possession and passing
award would arise later.

(iv) Section 48 of the 1894 Act is structured on a legal
premise arising from the statutory scheme that the
government will have power to drop acquisition
proceedings at any stage before possession is taken,
obviously, that is the stage at which land is yet to vest
in the State. As already observed above, the vesting of
land in the State would happen on the passing of the
award and taking its possession. The Division Bench in
NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE, supra, framed the question at
paragraph 19: …Therefore, now the question is whether
the State Government could have de- notified these
lands after they vested with the State by virtue of
notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. This
question is answered in the subsequent paragraphs of
the decision in a negative way. Of course, one of the
factors for such a view was that the beneficiary of
acquisition was not heard in the matter. However, it is
only an added reason for the ratio and that the absence
of such a reason would not rob away the precedential
force of the said decision, as rightly argued by learned
counsel for the Petitioner-beneficiary of acquisition who
too was admittedly not heard before the denotification of
lands”.

67. However, the division Bench of this court in the case of

(1) ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LTD. VS. G. JAYARAM REDDY
87

AND ANOTHER (supra) at paragraph 6 and 7 has held as

under:

“6.The State Government has exercised its power under
Section 4 of the Act for issuing the impugned notifications at
Annexures-H & J, wherein the lands in dispute are deleted
from the acquisition proceedings.

Section 4 of the Act reads as under:

“4. Alteration of industrial area.- The State Government
may at any time, by notification, exclude from any
industrial area, any area or include therein any
additional area, as may be specified in such notification.”

7. From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is very clear
that the powers under the said provision of law can be
exercised by the State Government at any stage. Unlike
Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no
provision under the Act which provides that the State has no
power to take a decision to delete the lands notified for
acquisition or to alter the industrial area after possession of
the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition
proceedings has been taken. Therefore, in our considered
view, the learned Single Judge was not justified in holding
that the State Government had erred in issuing the impugned
notifications deleting the lands in dispute from the acquisition
proceedings since the possession of the said lands were
already taken.”

68. There appears to be an anomaly with regard to power

of the State Government and stage of exercise of such power

to delete/denotify the acquired lands which may required to

be addressed and clarified in an appropriate proceeding.
88

CONCLUSION:

69. In the facts circumstance of this matter this Court is of

the considered view that the MRPL has not made out ground

for quashing of the notifications and /or the impugned award

dated 7.7.2023.

70. In view of land owners not having challenged the award

dated 07.07.2023 which is passed subsequent to award dated

16.03.2023 and this Court having reserved liberty to the land

owners to avail such remedy as may be available under the

law before the appropriate authority including seeking of

enhancement of compensation, they are not entitled for grant

of relief as sought for. However, they are entitled for

amount/compensation as determined under award dated

07.07.2023.

71. For the reasons assigned above, the MRPL need not be

impleaded as party respondent in W.P.No.15168/2023.

With these observations, following;

89

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition No.22685/2023 filed by the MRPL is

dismissed.

(ii) Writ petition in W.P.No.15168/2023 is partly

allowed directing the respondent authorities to disburse

amount of Rs.55,69,76,660/- determined under award

dated 07.07.2023. Since the said amount is already

deposited before this Court pursuant to the order dated

23.9.2023 the said amount be released in favour of the

petitioners in W.P.No.15168/2023 forthwith.

(iii) I.A.No.2/2023 filed by MRPL seeking to implead

itself as a party respondent No.5 in W.P.No.15168/2023

is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SBN/RU

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VISHAL SAINI ADVOCATE