Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rangaswamy B M, was the owner of land acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act). A consent award was made on 21 November 2007 fixing compensation at Rs.31,00,000/- per acre. The appellant initially sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for enhancement, claiming Rs.40,00,000/- per acre. However, on 3 March 2010, the appellant voluntarily entered into a statutory agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, agreeing to accept the compensation of Rs.31,00,000/- per acre and acknowledging receipt of Rs.1,24,00,000/-. The agreement contained clauses (3, 4, and 7) that made the settlement final and binding. Despite this, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the consent award, which was dismissed by a single judge. The appellant then filed a writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, held that the appellant, having voluntarily entered into the statutory agreement, was bound by its terms and could not seek further enhancement. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the single judge's order.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Consent Award - Binding Nature - Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, Section 29(2) - The appellant voluntarily entered into a statutory agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966, agreeing to compensation at Rs.31,00,000/- per acre and received Rs.1,24,00,000/-. The court held that such an agreement is binding and the appellant cannot subsequently seek enhancement of compensation through a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal against the single judge's order dismissing the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant can challenge the consent award and seek enhancement of compensation after voluntarily entering into a statutory agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The order of the single judge dated 25/11/2019 in W.P.No.3373/2018 is upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Consent award binding
- Section 29(2) agreement bars further enhancement
- Reference under Section 18 of L.A. Act not maintainable after statutory agreement
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (01) 19
Writ Appeal No.15/2020 (LA-KIADB)
Abhay S. Oka, Chief Justice; Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
Sri Shivareddy K N for appellant; Sri Vikram Adithya Huilgol, HCGP for respondent 3
The C.E.O. & Executive Member, KIADB; The Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB; The State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging consent award in land acquisition
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the single judge's order and allow the writ petition to challenge the consent award and seek higher compensation
Filing Reason
Appellant claimed that the consent award was not binding and sought enhancement of compensation
Previous Decisions
Single judge dismissed W.P.No.3373/2018 (LA-KIADB) on 25/11/2019
Issues
Whether the appellant is bound by the consent award and the statutory agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, 1966
Whether the appellant can seek enhancement of compensation after voluntarily entering into the agreement
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the consent award was not binding and that he was entitled to higher compensation as per the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Respondents contended that the appellant voluntarily entered into the statutory agreement and received the compensation, thus he cannot now challenge it
Ratio Decidendi
A landowner who voluntarily enters into a statutory agreement under Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, agreeing to a specific compensation amount and receiving payment, is bound by that agreement and cannot subsequently seek enhancement of compensation through a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Judgment Excerpts
An award purporting to be a consent award was made on 21st November 2007.
On 3rd March 2010, the appellant unconditionally entered into an agreement under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966 with the State Government by which, he agreed to take compensation @ Rs.31,00,000/- per acre and therefore, it is recorded in the agreement that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.1,24,00,000/-.
We find that the appellant having voluntarily entered into the statutory agreement under sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act of 1966, he is bound by the same.
Procedural History
The appellant's land was acquired under the KIAD Act, 1966. A consent award was made on 21/11/2007. The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 20/02/2008. On 03/03/2010, the appellant entered into a statutory agreement under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. The appellant filed W.P.No.3373/2018 challenging the consent award, which was dismissed by a single judge on 25/11/2019. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966: Section 29(2)
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 18
- Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
