AKKALAPPA, Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(KAR)-2017-8-112
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (FROM: BENGALURU)
Decided on August 10,2017

Akkalappa, Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents




JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioners are seeking the relief of declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land measuring 4 acres 30 guntas at Sy.No.51 of Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk have lapsed.
(2.)Sri A.Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the preliminary notification and the final notifications were issued on 23.08.1988 and 25.09.1989 respectively and that the award was passed on 23.06.1990. But no amounts whatsoever are released to the petitioners. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner, vide his letter, dated 15.11.1990 (Annexure-R4) addressed to the Revenue Secretary has quantified the total amounts payable towards the compensation as Rs.1,85,47,231/-. He submits that the said letter itself shows that out of Rs.1,85,47,231/-, the payment made by the beneficiary is only Rs.1,44,35,622.50. He submits that the said letter states that the direct payments are made to the GPA holder to the tune of Rs.60,99,250/-. He submits that the petitioners have not executed any general power of attorney in favour of anybody in respect of the lands in question. He further submits that neither the petitioners nor their father had authorized anybody to receive the compensation on their behalf.
(3.)He submits that the possession of the lands in question is with the petitioners only. He relies on the photographs in Annexure 'G' series for showing the status of the lands in question. He relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs. HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2014 SC 982 for advancing the submission that if the compensation amounts are not paid, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be declared as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He also relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of SEETHARAM AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS passed in W.A.Nos.818-849/2014 C/w. W.A.No. 958/2014 disposed of on 13.04.2017. He submits that the Division Bench has returned a categorical finding that a middleman, one M.Krishnappa conducted himself as if he is the owner of the land and entered into a purported agreement with the third respondent Society. He submits that the fraud has been played by the middleman. Para 15 of the said judgment read out by the learned counsel is extracted hereinbelow:
"15. In all the cases where acquisitions have been found to be tainted on account of involvement of middleman, who, by using his financial power, had influenced the Government in the decision making process for acquiring the lands, and where the mandatory requirements of Section 3(f)(vi) of the said Act, requiring framing of scheme and prior approval by the Government were absent, the entire acquisition had been quashed. In the cases on hand, M.Krishnappa has been the Managing Partner of Rajendra Enterprises, and he acted as the middleman. He was engaged for influencing the Government for the purpose of acquiring the lands in question. A general power of attorney and affidavits were executed in favour of said M.Krishnappa. A bare perusal of the affidavits and the general power of attorney indicates that the land owners were virtually illiterate people; many of them had put their left thumb impression in both the general power of attorney and the affidavits. Some of them had signed. However, on perusal of the signatures and their style of subscribing the signatures clearly indicate that the land owners were virtually illiterate and rustic village people. It is apparent, therefore, that fraud has been perpetrated upon the land owners. An indemnity bond was executed by the said M.Krishnappa in favour of the State. In the indemnity bond, the said Krishnappa claimed himself that he had been the owner of the lands and the society permitted him to execute the indemnity and to collect the compensation from the Government. It is, thus, clear that the middleman, namely, the said M.Krishnappa, entered into a purported agreement with the society, influenced the Government and received the compensation. The land owners did not receive the compensation and the consent given by the said M.Krishnappa, by virtue of his power of attorney and the affidavits, has been a product of fraud."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.