TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingle Judge that in the background of upholding the contention of the respondents/writ petitioners of their entitlement of compensation under the provisions of Act, 2013, the entire benefit including the benefit under Section 96 of the said Act, 2013 has to be extended in its entirety. More so, as already noted even BMRCL, which is the appellant in the connected matter challenging the relief granted in favour of respondent/writ petitioners for determination of their claim for compensation under Act, 2013, itself has issued package compensation as per Annexure-H and General Compensation has been awarded as per Annexure-H1 taking into consideration the provisions of Act, 2013. Therefore, contention of appellant cannot be accepted, to say that since the exemption of payment of Income Tax Act and deduction of income tax at source on the compensation payable against the acquisition of land only if it is made under Act, 2013 and not under KIADB Act, 1966. Learned Single Judge in his discussion on point No.3 has taken into consideration the provisions of law, the Circular and also the exemption granted from payment of income tax and deduction of tax at source in the awards and also the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranting exemption from tax under Income Tax Act, 1961 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. (g) The appellant and respondent-authorities are also directed to disburse/pay the compensation already deposited by them as per the earlier award and the amount deposited by the appellants before the court was also directed to be released in favour of the respondents. 2. Contempt petition in CCC No.1047/2022 has been filed by the respondents complaining disobedience of the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Since these appeals are filed against the common order involving common facts and issues they are heard together and taken up for common disposal. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that Respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.890/2022 claiming to be owners of properties bearing identification No.R1E-235 and No.R1E-235A situated at Sadaramangala Village, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru filed writ petition in W.P.No.43206/2018 contending interalia that; the property bearing No.R1E-235 was notified by respondent No.8- Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as `KIABD' for short) for acquisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the Circular dated 25.10.2016 issued by Central Board for Direct Taxes. 8. The said writ petitions were resisted by the respondent authorities questioning the very maintainability in view of availability of alternate remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation before the Reference Court. It was contended that the compensation was required to be awarded under Act, 1894 and not under Act, 2013 as the same is not applicable in respect to the acquisition made by KIADB. That the deduction of tax at source was in accordance with provisions of law as no exemption is provided from payment of income tax on the compensation. 9. Considering the rival contentions, learned Single Judge framed following points for his consideration; (i) Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the remedy of seeking enhancement of compensation before the reference court being available to the petitioners, who have already sought for such reference? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act ,2013, in respect of lands acquired pursu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IADB? 2. Whether the impugned Judgment dated 21.04.2022 is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Anasuya Bai and followed by this Hon ble Court in Sri.Ananthaswamy? 3. Whether the Hon ble Writ Court s reliance on Jalaja is sustainable? 4. Is the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in Nagpur Improvement Trust of any assistance to the Respondent No.1? 5. Whether the decisions of this Hon ble Court in Mahesh and in Jemcy Ponnappa of any assistance to the Respondent No.1? 13. Adverting to above said propositions, learned Senior Counsel Sri.Dhananjay Joshi submitted that: 13.1 The appellant has locus standi to maintain the writ appeal as it is not an allottee of land by the KIADB. That on the other hand, the appellant is a party to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.02.2017. That, appellant is a joint Venture Company, incorporated for the purpose of implementing Bangalore Metro Rail Project in Bangalore in which the Central Government and the Karnataka State Government are having equal share holding. That the cost of the project including payment of compensation for the acquired land is to be met by the appellant and that the KIADB is merely a facilitating age ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. As such, he submitted that the resolution passed by the Board referred to and relied upon in the case of Jalaja was one without authority of law. 13.3 He also submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs Vithal Rao and others reported in (1973)1 SCC 500 is of no avail to the case of respondents as the Apex Court at paragraph 28 of the said Judgment as held that when the object of acquisition is the same, there cannot be discrimination in determination of compensation. Referring to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Girnar Traders Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2011)3 SCC 1, he submitted that the Apex Court has declared that MRTP Act, 1966 is a self contained code and there is no conflict with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the object of said two legislations are different. He also submitted that the Apex Court relying upon the analysis made in the case of Girinar Traders has held in the case of Anasuya Bai (supra) that the object of KIAD Act, 1966 is different from Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and there is no conflict between the two legislations. As such, he submitted the decision of Apex Court in the case of Nagpur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EMENT TRUST (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that if the existence of two acts enables the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated, the owner who is discriminated against can claim protection of Article 14. That it is immaterial under which Act and for what purpose the land is acquired as far as land losers are concerned the differential standard of compensation cannot be applied. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Girnar Traders (supra) to contend that where the statutes are considered as self contained code, the legislation by incorporation or by reference has no relevance. Consequently the Government had effectuated the enhancement made in LA (Amendment) Act, 1984 to KIAD Act, 1966 without considering legislation by incorporation. 14.3 That since there is no challenge to the impugned order by the state authorities, the same amounts to acceptance of the impugned order. He further submitted that it has been the consistent stand of the authorities that the compensation payable in respect of all acquisitions initiated after 01.01.2014 shall be under Act, 2013 as it had been brought into effect as on that date. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e award by applying the provisions of Act, 2013 and payment of compensation would not come in the way of implementation of the Metro Rail Project. Besides, claim for compensation is a statutory right of the land losers. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. W.A.No.1070/2022 15. Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for Central Board of Direct Taxes and another for the appellants in W.A.No.1070/2022 reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal submitted; 15.1 that the respondent had never taken a plea before passing of an award that they are entitled for compensation under Act, 2013 and not under the Act, 1894. As such the reliance placed on Circular dated 25.10.2016 issued by CBDT is incorrect as the said circular is applicable with respect to the awards passed under Act, 2013 only and the same is stipulated under clause 3 of the said circular. 15.2 Referring to proviso to Section 194-LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 he submitted the same is applicable to Act, 2013 and not under the Act, 1894. He submitted that a conjoint reading of Section 96 of the Act, 2013 and CBDT circular dated 25.10.2016, provisions of Section 194-LA and Section 10(37) of the Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1966 it is the State which is vested with powers to determine and award compensation and no such power is provided to be exercised by the Board. As such, 343rd Resolution passed by the Board is without authority. He submitted that the amendment to the KIAD Act namely, Section 30 was brought in only in the year 2022 and the same cannot be given retrospective effect as in the instant case, the acquisitions were made prior to the said Amendment. Thus he submitted the order impugned is unsustainable. 19. Heard and perused the records. 20. The principal reliefs sought for in the writ petitions is on the premise that in respect of all acquisitions made on and after 01.01.2014 under the KIAD Act, 1966 the compensation and benefits shall be awarded in terms of provisions of Act, 2013 and for the benefit of exemption from payment of income tax on the said compensation amount, as provided under Section 96 of Act, 2013. 21. The basis on which the aforesaid reliefs are claimed by the petitioners is the resolution of KIADB passed in its 343rd meeting held on 27.08.2016 to the effect that in respect of acquisition of lands made under KIAD Act, 1966 where preliminary notification is issued on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of KIAD Act, 1966. 24. As noted above, the claim of the petitioners is for grant of compensation under the Act, 2013. Though respondent authorities and the appellant herein do not seriously dispute grant of compensation under the Act, 2013, except stating that the package compensation offered by the appellant herein applying provisions of Act, 2013 is only for the limited purpose of passing consent award and if it was not accepted the compensation would be awarded in accordance provisions of KIAD Act, 1966, it is necessary at this juncture to refer to the very notification dated 15.10.2015 issued under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, 1966 seeking to acquire the subject property in that it is stated that compensation for acquisition would be paid in terms of Act, 2013. When a representation to pay the compensation is under Act, 2013 is made in the very notification, respondent-authorities cannot be allowed to contend the contrary. 25. In that view of the matter the contention of the respondent-authorities that grant of compensation in the cases referred to and relied upon by the respondents/ writ petitioners was on the basis of the fact the land acquired was not for BMRCL and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion under the Act, 2013. 30. The contention of the appellant that KIADB under the scheme of Act, 1966 is not having any power or authority in the matter of determination and payment of compensation which power and authority is vested exclusively in the State Government though appears to be tenable, however, in view of the fact that the resolution of the KIADB passed in its 343rd meeting referred to hereinabove has apart from being given effect to has been accepted and reiterated by the State Government in its communication referred to above, the said contention pales into insignificance. That apart KIADB in the aforesaid proceedings namely Puttalakshmma and Jalaja has relied upon said resolution enabling this Court to accept the contentions of the land losers of their entitlement for compensation under Act, 2013. As already noted above, there has been no challenge to the validity or otherwise of the said resolution of KIADB by the State Government and the same has attained finality. 31. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order at paragraph 10.6 to 10.14 has extensively dealt with on this aspect of the matter and in our considered view, has come to the just conclusion that the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase for maintainability of the writ appeal, cannot be heard to say that the respondents/petitioners are not entitled to payment of compensation under Act, 2013. 35. Similarly, though no appeal is preferred by the State and the KIADB, a feeble attempt is made by them to contend that the payment of compensation under Act, 2013 was made in the cases of Puttalakshmamma, Jalaja, Mahesh and Jemcy Ponnappa as the said cases were not concerned with the acquisition of land of BMRCL, the said submissions cannot be countenanced in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nagpur Improvement Trust (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that if the existence of two acts enables the State to give one owner different treatment from another equally situated, the owner who is discriminated against can claim protection of Article 14. That it is immaterial under which Act and for what purpose the land is acquired as far as land looses or concerned the differential standard of compensation cannot be applied. 36. The other contention of the impugned order being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anusuay Bai and others followed by this Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made that the exemption from payment of income tax and from deduction of tax at source can be provided only in respect of acquisition made under Act, 2013 and not under KIADB Act, 1966. Therefore, he submits the benefit of exemption cannot be extended. He also refers to provisions of Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 40. As rightly taken note of by the learned Single Judge that in the background of upholding the contention of the respondents/writ petitioners of their entitlement of compensation under the provisions of Act, 2013, the entire benefit including the benefit under Section 96 of the said Act, 2013 has to be extended in its entirety. More so, as already noted even BMRCL, which is the appellant in the connected matter challenging the relief granted in favour of respondent/writ petitioners for determination of their claim for compensation under Act, 2013, itself has issued package compensation as per Annexure-H and General Compensation has been awarded as per Annexure-H1 taking into consideration the provisions of Act, 2013. Therefore, contention of appellant cannot be accepted, to say that since the exemption of payment of Income Tax Act and deduction of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
