The State must comply with due process for land acquisition and compensate fairly; failure to follow procedures amounts to a constitutional violation.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“a. To Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondents No.1, 4 and 5 to pay the compensation/award amount to the Petitioner along with 18% interest for acquisition of petitioner schedule land as per Right to fair and compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 in so for as the Petitioners schedule land is concerned.

b. To directed to initiate departmental enquiry against the Respondent No.1 and 5 for dereliction of duty, inaction and willfully failed to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner for acquisition his of schedule land.

c. To issue mandamus directing the 2^nd Respondent and 1^st Respondent to consider the Representation given by the Petitioner on 25.04.2011 and final representation 25.10.2021 as per the Annexure-D & H.

d. To Issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble court deems fir under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 5. Perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of land measuring 4 acres 38 guntas in Survey No.80, B Block, Nellorahalli Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru Urban District, which was granted to him under Order No.LND SR 3028/1968-69 dated 15.10.1968 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District. The Saguvali chit was issued on 17.09.1971, and the petitioner's name was duly entered in the mutation register (MR No.7/72-73) and revenue records. The petitioner, along with three others, namely, Ramaiah Reddy, Narayana Reddy and Narayanappa, owned the adjacent portions in the same survey number each measuring 4 acres 38 guntas. In 1993, 1994, and 1995, the Village Accountant failed to issue RTC extracts and the lands were wrongly shown as ‘Sarkari Gomal’. The petitioner and other three approached this Court in the writ petition and this Court allowed it, setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

4. While the proceedings were pending, the Special Deputy Commissioner addressed a letter to the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru dated 30.10.1999, stating that the lands had already been transferred to the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB). Thereafter, by order dated 06.07.2000, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the petitioner's claim, treating the lands as a Government property.

5. Challenging the Assistant Commissioner’s order, the petitioner and others filed W.P. Nos.26883-886/2000. This Court by order dated 12.09.2001, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of ownership and observed that if the petitioner succeeds, they would be entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (‘LA Act’ for short notwithstanding that no acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) or the LA Act, 1894.

6. Pursuant to the said liberty, the petitioner instituted O.S. No.298/2002 which was decreed on 06.06.2009, declaring him the absolute owner in possession of the schedule proper