The obligation to pay compensation for land acquired for public purposes is a fundamental requirement under both statutory law and constitutional provisions, and failure to do so constitutes a violation of property rights.

JUDGMENT

Krishna S Dixit, J.

The tone for this judgment can be set by adverting to the words of Saint Augustine (354 - 430 A.D.) in his book, The City of God, Volume 1 (426 A.D):

'Without justice, what else is the State but a great band of robbers ...?'

2. Petitioners being the owners of lands in question are knocking at the doors of Writ Court grieving against their acquisition vide Preliminary Notification dated 09.01.2007 issued under Section 28(1) followed by the Final Notification dated 17.05.2007 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks voiding of the acquisition on the following grounds that:

(i) His clients were already owners of the subject lands and therefore, their names ought to have figured in the acquisition notifications;

(ii) Petitioners vide Letter dated 09.01.2013 had requested the KIADB to pass the award and pay compensation; there has been a stony silence; payment of compensation is a precondition for sustaining acquisition;

(iii) Alternatively, the compensation should be paid to his clients under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act 2013 (hereafter 2013 Act), especially when the KIADB has allotted the subject lands by charging a huge sum of Rs.7.5 Crore or so, that too after giving a rebate of 50% to the allotees;

(v) There is enormous delay unjustifiably brooked in making the payment of compensation, that militates against the spirit of Article 300A of the Constitution which guarantees right to property; till date no payment is made and nothing is stated about the same in the Statement of Objections filed by the KIADB.

4. After service of notice, the State has entered appearance through the learned AGA and the KIADB is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel who has filed the Statement of Objections opposing the acquisition. Learned Panel Counsel contends that the acquisition having been completed by issuance of Final Notification on 17.05.2007, the lands have vested in the State and therefore, the same cannot be restored to the Petitioners. After the land owners notified the change of khatha pursuant to subject Sale Deeds, the Government has issued Corrigendum Notification on 05.06.2014 mentioning their names and because of the protocol process, there is some delay and now the payment of compensation will be made. So contending, they seek dismissal of Writ Petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, although this Court rejects challenge to acquisition of lands, it is inclined to grant indulgence in so far as non payment of compensation, following being the reasons:

(a) The 1st Petitioner bought 05 Acres & 01 Gunta of land in Sy.No.132 of Jonnahalli in Devanahalli Taluka by three registered Sale Deeds all dated 27.01.2007 and his name is mutated in the Revenue Records vide M.R. Nos.48, 49 & 50 of 2006-07 dated 22.03.2007. The 2^nd Petitioner bought only 38 Guntas of land in Sy.No.66/6 of the same village vide two Sale Deeds both dated 23.12.2006 and his name came to be mutated in the Revenue Records vide M.R.No.43/2006-07 dated 14.04.2007 & M.R.No.60/2006-07 dated 21.04.2007. Thus, as on the date of Preliminary Notification i.e., 09.01.2007, names of the Petitioners had not figured as khatedars in the Revenue Records and therefore, the KIADB was justified in notifying the acquisition in the names of their vendors then, who were the Khatedars.

(b) The vendors had not filed Objections to the acquisition since they had lost ownership over the lands, by virtue of registered sale deeds, is true. However, Petitioners along with other land owners had filed their Objections on 15.02.2007 vide Annexure - Q1, pursuant to the Notice dated 11.01.2007 issued by the SLAO himself under Section 28(2) of the 1966 Act. They had informed the KIADB about the land being adjacent to the village and also close to flying zone of Inter