The Collector must promptly deposit compensation into the land losers’ bank account post-award unless a disputed title exists.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. The Hon’ble court be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate direction OR order directing the Respondent No. 4 herein to pay compensation within a week as per notice at Annexure-B dt 05-10-2024.

ii. Issue any other writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of Plot No.1 in RS.

No.18/B situated at Bagalkot, Ward No.11, Gaddankeri, Bagalkot taluk. A preliminary notification had been published under Section 11 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013’, for short) on 21.01.2021 and the final notification under Section 19 (1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 came be published on 07.09.2023. Thereafter, a general award was published on 05.10.2024. A notice also came to be issued under Section 37 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to submit relevant papers for payment of compensation. Pursuant to which, the petitioners are stated to have submitted all the relevant documents, despite which, the payments have not been made and it is in that background, the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The submission of Sri.N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel for the petitioners is that, once a general award is passed under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and it has but required for the Collector to deposit the amount in the account of the petitioners and same not having been done, the writ petition is maintainable and a mandamus is required to be issued to respondents No.2 and 4 to deposit the necessary amounts.

4. Respondent No.2 being the beneficiary is required to make payment of the amount and respondent No.4 being the delegated authority of the state is required to formally deposit the amount. In this background, the writ petition is required to allowed.

5. Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 as well as Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that a writ petition would not be maintainable. The petitioners have alternative efficacious remedy of filing execution proceedings and as such a mandamus cannot be issued in the matter and the petitioners would have to approach the Execution Court.

6. Heard Sri.N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents No.1, 3 and 4 and Smt.Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the papers.

7. A short question that could arise for consideration is whether the general award passed under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, would entitle the land loser to approach this Court for a mandamus if the respondents did not deposit the amount covered under the general award in the bank account of the petitioners?

8. Once a final notification under Section 19 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is published, under Section 20, the land is required to be marked, under Section 21, notice is required to be issued to the persons interested, stating that the possession of the land would be taken and inviting any objections in relation thereto. Thereafter, under Section 23A, being the KARNATAKA AMENDMENT to the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, Section 24 to Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, by considering the parameters laid down therein, and the final award is to be passed under Section 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which is required to consider the amounts to be paid, including solatium. In terms of Section 30 (3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, interest would also be required to be paid as stated therein.

9. In terms of Section 77 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, payment of compensation is to be made by way of deposit in the ban