Consent agreements do not waive statutory entitlement to interest on delayed compensation under specific land acquisition laws.

ORDER :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in quashing the Endorsement bearing No.Belgaum/V.Bhoo Swa.A- 2/3763/2023-24 dated 27.03.2024 issued by the 4^th Respondent vide ANNEXURE-A, in the interest of justice and equity.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to pass an award determining a fair, just and reasonable compensation in respect of the land measuring 8 Acres in Sy.No.6, Block No.1, Singahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bangalore acquired by the Respondents vide Preliminary Notification dated 07.08.2006, and Final Notification dated 26.09.2008 vide ANNEXURE-B having regard to the fact that the compensation was paid after 13 years from the date of vesting the land in the State Government, in the interest of justice and equity.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to pay interest @ 12% p.a. to the Petitioner on compensation amount to be determined by the Respondents from 25.09.2008 the date on which Final Notification was issued and the land was vested in the State Government till 12.01.2021 the compensation @ Rs.62,00,000/- per acre was paid, and further interest on the enhanced compensation, in the interest of justice and equity.

(iv) Pass any other order of consequential relief or any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.”

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner's father had been granted 8 acres of land in Survey No.6, Block No.1, Singahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru, which later came to be acquired under the preliminary notification dated 07.08.2006 and final notification dated 26.09.2008 for the formation of IT Tech Park, Aerospace Park and Hardware Park. The case of the petitioner is that though possession vested in the State under Section 28 (4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIAD Act’ for short) in 2008, the petitioner was not paid compensation for more than 13 years and finally received only Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre on 12.01.2021, that too under protest and without any interest, whereas other similarly placed land losers, pertaining to the same survey number and same notification, were paid Rs. 72,00,000/- per acre as compensation and were also paid at interest 9% and even 12% for the delayed payment.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the endorsement dated 27.03.2024 (Annexure-A), whereby the petitioner’s representation has been rejected on the ground that he had entered into a consent award, is wholly unsustainable. It is submitted that though an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Government on 24.12.2008, fixing compensation at Rs. 62,00,000/- per acre, the said agreement nowhere prohibits or waives the statutory entitlement to interest. The petitioner asserts that the possession of the land was taken by the authorities long prior to the payment of compensation, which was disbursed only in the year 2025, thereby giving rise to a statutory right to interest from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. The petitioner further contends that the reasoning adopted in the impugned endorsement is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constituti