(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed u/s. 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying to, call for the records  pertaining to writ petition no.85557/2013(LA-KIADB) filed by the respondent no.1 before the ld. single judge for this hon’ble court; and set aside the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned single judge of this hon’ble court in writ petition nos. 85557/2013(LA-KIADB) and further to dismiss the said writ petitions.)

M.I. Arun, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2024 passed in W.P. No.85557/2013, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, respondent No.3 therein has preferred this appeal.

2. On 19.08.2006, a Preliminary Notification was issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (for short, ‘the Act’), to acquire certain lands for establishment of IT/BT park at Dharwad, which included the land which is the subject matter of the writ petition. After providing necessary opportunity to the landlosers to file their objections, a Final Notification was issued under Section 28(4) of the Act on 06.10.2006. By issuance of the Final Notification, the lands stood vested with the government.

3. Thereafter, efforts were made to determine the compensation by way of consent. In this regard, there were various correspondences exchanged between the appellant and respondent No.1-landloser, which resulted in respondent No.1 giving his consent for the compensation so determined. An indemnity bond dated 10.06.2009 has been executed in this regard. The agreement dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure-R2) reads as under:

                  IMAGE

                  IMAGE

4. The indemnity bond dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure- R3), reads as under:

                  IMAGE

                  IMAGE

                  This has been signed by both the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the owner of the land (respondent No.1). Thereafter, respondent No.1 has also received the compensation in terms of the said agreement. Later a consent award was also passed regarding the amount payable towards structures and was paid to respondent No.1. However, though in the indemnity bond, it was mentioned that he had received the said payment, as on the date of executing it, the records reveal that the same was paid to him on 23.03.2010.

5. Subsequently, in the year 2013, he files W.P. No.85557/2013 with the following prayers:

                  “A) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to No.3 to consider Representation dtd: 29.07.2008 vide ANNEXURE-F and direction may be issued to pay compensation of Rs.5,91,20,000/- to the Petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity.

                  B) Alternatively, a direction may be issued to the 1st Respondent to refer the matter to the 2nd Respondent for determination of appropriate compensation in terms of Representation dtd: 29/7/2008 vide ANNEXURE-F, in the interest of justice and equity.

                  BB. Declare that the documents Annexures - R2 to R7 are not the agreements in terms of Section 29(2) of the Act and the same are void and unenforceable against the Petitioner, in the interest of justice and equity.

                  C) Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

6. It is pertinent to note that in the aforementioned prayers, the petitioner has asked for a direction to the authorities concerned to consider his representation dated 29.07.2008 which is prior to the consent award wherein he had requested for payment of higher compensation and he has further prayed that, in the alternative, a direction may be issued to the Reference Court to consider his request for higher compensation.

7. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the parties concerned, on facts, has passed the following Order:

                  “108. It is hereby declared that the agreements executed by the petitioners in both these cases were vitiated as they were obtained by exerting undue influence on them and they cannot therefore be bound by the terms of said agreements.

                  109. For the reasons stated above, the agreements upon which reliance is placed by the Board in cases pertaining to the Dharwad Lands and the Ballari Lands to evidence acceptance of compensation, shall stand quashed.”

8. The learned Single Judge has also ruled about the constitution of Price Advisory Committee by the KIADB and has held as under:

                  “110. As already stated above, since the entire approach of the authorities in holding a public meeting by constituting a Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner is fundamentally opposed to the mandate of Section 29(2), any payment made on the basis of the decision of the Committee would not amount to payments of compensation which has been determined under an agreement.

                  111. Since the Deputy Commissioner has himself suggested the compensation payable while heading the Committee, it is obvious that the matter cannot now be referred to him to determine the compensation. As a consequence, the authorities shall refer the matter to the Civil Court, who shall determine the compensation that the petitioners would be entitled to.

                  112. The Civil Court shall treat the matter as a reference under Section 18(3) of the Land Acquisition Act of1894, thereafter hold an enquiry to determine whether the claim of the petitioners for the higher compensation is justified, either wholly or in-part, and pass appropriate orders.”

9. In addition, the learned Single Judge has issued the following directions:

                  114. Before parting with this case, it would be necessary to lay down the procedure which the Board is required to follow under Section 29(2) for determining the amount of compensation payable by agreement.

                  115. This has become necessary since there are no statutory rules framed under the Act in this regard and also because the delay in determining the compensation violates the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, while causing serious prejudice to the land-loser, thereby giving the officials of the State an unfair advantage over a person who has lost his land.

                  116. The Board shall follow the following procedure in the matter of determining compensation under Section 29 of the Act.

                  a. The Board shall not follow the procedure of constituting a Committee to determine the price of the land for the purposes of Section 29(2) of the Act as the same would be contrary to the statutory provisions;

                  b. The Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, as the case may be, shall make a written offer to the land-loser within a month of the declaration under Section 28(4)being published, clearly stating the amount of compensation that he is prepared to offer for the lands acquired;

                  c. If the land loser were to refuse the offer in writing, the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer shall within a month thereafter, refer the matter of the Deputy Commissioner for determining the amount of compensation;

                  d. If the land-loser is incapable of being notified of the written offer or if he fails to respond to the offer within the aforementioned period of 2 months from the written offer of the Board/the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, it shall be presumed that the land-loser has refused to accept compensation by way of an agreement and the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer shall forthwith refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for determining the compensation;

                  e. In either of these cases, the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer shall deposit the amount that he has offered as compensation, in the Civil Court, and the Civil Court shall thereafter invest the same in a Fixed Deposit;

                  f. If the land-loser were to make a counter-offer to the written proposal of the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer, it would be open for the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer to either consider the counter-offer or reject the counter-offer or even embark upon a further course of deliberation. However, in no event shall the deliberations be continued beyond 6 months from the date of publication of the declaration in the Gazette;

                  g. On the expiry of six months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 28(4) in the Gazette, whether the land-loser has agreed to the offer or not, the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the agreement and also deposit the amount that it had offered, in the Civil Court, which shall invest the amount in a Fixed Deposit;

                  h. It is hereby clarified that mere deposit of the amount offered by the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer would not disentitle the land-losers for any interest that they may be entitled to in terms of the provisions relating to payment of interest under the Land Acquisition Act;

                  i. The Deputy Commissioner shall within 6months of the reference to him by the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer determine the compensation as provided under Section 29(3) of the Act; and

                  j. The land-loser will then have the option of seeking a reference to the Civil Court and he would be entitled to seek withdrawal of the amount that has been deposited pursuant to the offer made by the Assistant Commissioner/the Special Land Acquisition Officer/the Additional Land Acquisition Officer (only in cases where there is no dispute regarding the entitlement of the land-loser).

                  k. It is also made clear that it would be open for the KIADB to straightaway refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of compensation, if it does not wish to enter into the process of determination of compensation by way of an Agreement under Section 29(2) of the Act.

10. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, KIADB has preferred this appeal with the following prayer:

                  “(a) Call for the records pertaining to Writ Petition No.85557/2013(LA-KIADB) filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court;

                  (b) Set aside the Order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition Nos.85557/2013(LA-KIADB) and further to dismiss the said writ petitions; and,

                  (c) Award the costs of this Appeal and further to pass any other orders as found deem and fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

11. Heard Sri. Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. S.S. Yadrami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Narayan V. Yaji, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri. G.K. Hiregoundar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

12. The lands of respondent No.1 have been acquired for formation of an IT/BT Park by the State in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the said acquisition is not challenged. The only grievance raised is with regard to the compensation paid.

13. Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 reads as under:

                  “29. Compensation.- (1) Where any land is acquired by the State Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

                  (2) Where the amount of compensation has been determined by agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement.

                  (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the State Government shall refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the amount of compensation to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such compensation shall be paid.

                  (4) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (3), the Deputy Commissioner shall serve notice on the owner or occupier of such land and on all persons known or believed to be interested herein to appear before him and state their respective interests in the said land.”

14. In respect of lands where no consent award is passed, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the award is determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer after hearing the parties concerned, in terms of Section 29(3) and Section 29(4) of the Act, as per the notification issued, even though it is mentioned that reference made to the Deputy Commissioner in the said section. This submission is not disputed by respondent No.1 or by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

15. It is further submitted that this aspect was not argued before the learned Single Judge, as the interpretation of Section 29(3) and Section 29(4) of the Act was not relevant for deciding the dispute on hand. However, the learned Single Judge proceeded to issue directions regarding the Price Advisory Committee, though no arguments were advanced on that issue. The said submission is also not controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

16. With regard to the Price Advisory Committee, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the same was constituted by the State with the participation of several responsible officers to arrive at fair and just compensation for the land losers, considering various relevant factors such as the potential use of the land and proper evaluation of market value, instead of relying solely on the assessment of the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that there was no requirement for the learned Single Judge to pronounce on the validity of the said committee, as the lis on hand required only a determination as to the validity of the consent award entered into under Section 29(2) of the Act.

17. After issuance of the final notification, negotiations were held between the appellant and the land loser, and a meeting was convened on 26.11.2007 for passing a consent award under Section 29(2) of the Act. Initially, compensation at the rate of Rs.5,21,362/- per acre was proposed, which was rejected, and the records indicate that farmers were demanding Rs.25 to Rs.30 lakhs per acre. Subsequent offers of Rs.9,00,000/- per acre and Rs.13,36,000/- per acre were also not accepted. Thereafter, by letter dated 29.07.2008, respondent No.1 demanded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per gunta, amounting to Rs.5,91,20,000/- for the entire land, which was also not accepted. However, respondent No.1 ultimately accepted a total compensation of Rs.83,16,600/- for the entire extent of land measuring 6 acres and 36 guntas, and an agreement dated 10.06.2009 was entered into. Further, a separate agreement was entered into in respect of the building towards which a sum of Rs.83,18,014/- was paid. The entire compensation agreed has been paid and received, and the transaction stood concluded on 23.03.2010.

18. Subsequently, on 12.12.2013, respondent No.1 filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, based on the correspondence exchanged between the parties, held that the agreement dated 10.06.2009 was vitiated by undue influence. In our considered opinion, the said conclusion is erroneous, as there is nothing on record to establish undue influence. Had respondent No.1 not agreed to the consent award, an award under Section 29(1) of the Act would have been passed, and he could have sought enhancement in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. Respondent No.1 never questioned the acquisition, voluntarily entered into the agreement, and received the compensation. After a lapse of several years, the writ petition was filed. Once a consent award was accepted, the question of seeking higher compensation does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, there was no necessity for the learned Single Judge to issue directions regarding the modalities of consent awards or to pronounce upon the formation of the Price Advisory Committee.

19. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

                  ORDER

                  i) The writ appeal is allowed.

                  ii) The order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.85557/2013 is set aside.

                  iii) The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 is dismissed.