Judgment:
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India With A Prayer To Call For The Records And Proceeds Of The Case and Direct The Respondent No.3 To Consider The Petitioner's Representation Dated 23.7.2012 Vide Annexure-P And Pay The Compensation At Prevailing Market Rate Of Rs.70.00 Lakhs Per Acre Along With Interest.)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondent No. 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.07.2013 at Annexure-P to the petition and pay the compensation at the prevailing market rate.
2. The respondents have acquired certain lands which includes the property bearing survey No. 154 measuring 4 acres, survey No. 157 measuring 4 acres and survey No. 158 measuring 4 acres situate at Arishiankunte village, Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore Rural district. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said property. Since no award had been passed in favour of the petitioner relating to the said properties, the petitioner was before this Court on earlier two occasions in W.P. No. 40911/2003 disposed of on 21.11.2003 and W.P. No. 43919/2011 disposed of on 13.02.2012.
3. This Court, more particularly in the later of the two writ petitions, has arrived at the conclusion that this Court in any event cannot decide the right of the parties to receive compensation and therefore taking note of the fact that the proceedings in L.A.C. No. 191/2006 was pending before the civil Court had disposed of the writ petition indicating that if the petitioner succeeds in L.A.C. No. 191/2006, such order would be executable decree and the same can be executed and at that point the KIADB will have to determine the compensation and pass the award in accordance with law. The proceedings in L.A.C. No. 191/2006 is concluded by the judgment dated 31.05.2012 by which it is declared that the claimant No. 1 therein, that is petitioner herein, is entitled for the compensation amount to be awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB.
4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 however contend that the said judgment passed in L.A.C. No. 191/2006 is essentially an ex-parte judgment and therefore respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had filed a miscellaneous petition in Mis. No. 25/2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner along with a memo dated 03.09.2014 has brought to the notice of this Court that the said case in Mis. No. 25/2013 was disposed of on 11.08.2014 and the contention urged by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been rejected. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would however contend that the miscellaneous petition has been disposed on the ground of limitation and presently respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed a miscellaneous appeal in No. 15041/2014 as brought to the notice of this Court by a memo dated 03.09.2014. The question therefore at present is, the nature of consideration to be made in this petition keeping in view the said developments.
5. At the outset, as already noticed, this Court at the earlier instance had directed that based on the conclusion in L.A.C. No. 191/2006 the award would be passed by the KIADB. Though L.A.C. No. 191/2006 has been disposed of and the miscellaneous assailing the said order has also been disposed of, the fact that the miscellaneous appeal is pending cannot be lost sight. Be that as it may, the issue presently is only with regard to the determination of compensation in respect of the land to which the petitioner is claiming right while on the other hand the respondents contend that the said property belongs to the Government and therefore no compensation is payable in respect of the said land. The question of disbursement of compensation would arise only after the compensation is determined by passing an award. Therefore the procedure required to be followed by the respondents for determining the compensation and passing an award need not wait until the miscellaneous appeal is considered by the Court below since even in such event the interest of the parties can be protected. At the same time, the time that would lost in the process can also be saved.
6. Therefore respondent No. 3 is directed to consider and determine the appropriate compensation that is payable in respect of the property bearing survey No. 154 measuring 4 acres, survey No. 157 measuring 4 acres and survey No. 158 measuring 4 acres situate at Arishiankunte village, Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore district. On determination of the amount of compensation, the award shall be passed thereto, but if in the meanwhile the proceedings relating to L.A.C. No. 191/2006 remains inconclusive either due to pendency of appeal or the LAC being restored, at that stage, the disbursement need not be made and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would have the liberty of placing the amount determined therein in a Bank deposit separately or referring the matter to the Civil Court as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Needless to mention, if in the meanwhile the judgment passed in L.A.C. No. 191/2006 dated 31.05.2012 attains finality without any modification, in such event the amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
7. In terms of the above the petition stands disposed of.