Point of Law : If the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, is of opinion that the matter cannot be resolved due to any legal impediment and is a matter to be decided by the Court, matter may be referred back to the Court.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement at Annexure-Q and T and has sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to consider the representation dated 25.08.2021 and make a reference in terms of Section 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') and for disposal of the reference on its merits.

2. The facts that are relevant for the purpose of disposal of writ petition are that an extent of 2147.03 sq. mt. and subsequently, further extent of 140 sq. mt. belonging to the petitioner -Authority came to be acquired for the benefit of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “BMRCL”). It is submitted by the petitioner that the only dispute at present is as regards the quantum of compensation.

3. It is noticed from the records that the Government Order was passed on 15.11.2016 whereby, it is provided that the land belonging to Government and other autonomous authorities if acquired, the rate that would be payable would be in terms of the Guideline Value under the Stamp and Registration Act as in force. It is submitted that after payment, the land as required for the Bangalore Metro Rail Project could be transferred. In terms of Government order above referred, it is stated that a meeting was held and proceedings were drawn on 09.11.2019 wherein for the aforementioned extent of land of 2147 sq. mt., price that was fixed was Rs.15,35,22,645/-. Petitioner however submits that such proceedings are not binding as there was no representative of the petitioner in such meeting.

4. The BMRCL has taken a stand that the compensation arrived at, is in terms of the proceedings dated 09.11.2019 and accordingly, the BMRCL is not entitled to bear any further compensation.

5. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is an entity which is State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The dispute is between the petitioner and BMRCL. The BMRCL also for all practical purposes can be construed to be an Entity for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in light of the control by the Union and the State Government. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB and the Karnataka State Industries and Commerce Department are respondents herein. Wherever disputes have arisen between the State and its entities, the Apex Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of A.P. vs. Collector and Others, 2003 (3) SCC 472 (Chief Conservator of Forests) has observed as follows:

“14. Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or CPC that two departments of a State or the Union of India will fight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither appropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or the Union of India to fight litigation in a court of law. Indeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public interest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money and time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs and, therefore, they must act in coordination and not in confrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only against the propriety and polity as it smacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. The States/Union of India must evolve a mechanism to set at rest all interdepartmental controversies at the level of the Government and such matters should not be carried to a court of law for resolution of the controversy. In the case of disputes between public sector undertakings and the Uni