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
1529.01.2019. 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
28was 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
29they 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
30from 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
31feasibility 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
32W.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
47has 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
48Rs.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
50in 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-regRef: 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
61SLAO 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,
MangaloreSir,
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 MRPLWe 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 KIADBb. Will there be any additional financial implication on MRPL
c. Is it possible to exclude the land from the acquisition
processKIADB is requested to furnish above details for us to forward our
opinion as desired vide above letter.
Thanking you,
For Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals LimitedSd/- 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 011Sir,
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 VillagesRef: 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 subjectThis 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
65if 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
66not 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
6721.10.2022 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