Rajamma vs. The State Of Karnataka

ITEM NO.36+12 Court 3 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-A SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 19824/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-03-2016 in WA No. 16453/2011 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru) RAMAKRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. $Respondent(s)$ WITH SLP(C) No. $21251/2021$ (IV-A) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES ON IA 8604/2022, IA No. 8604/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) SLP(C) No. $1689/2022$ (IV-A) (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 16420/2022, IA No. 16420/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. $22994-22995/2016$ (IV-A) $SLP(C)$ No(s). $3869-3870/2022$ (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.31117/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING $C/C$ OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date: 16-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. Hemant Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR Ms. Rukhimini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Ankit Ambasta, Adv. Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sumit Goel, Adv Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv Mr. Manu Bajaj, Adv M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Himanshu Dayal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR

$\mathbf{1}$

For Respondent(s)

Mr. V.N.Raghupathy, Advocate Mr. Md.Apzal Ansari, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Goel (AAG) Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi (AOR) Mr. Ashish Yadav (Adv.) Mr. Rakshit Jain (Adv) Mr. Vishal Banshal (Adv) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Radhakrishna S Hegde, ADv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

SLP(C) Nos. 19824 and 22994-95 of 2016

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

We see no reason to deviate from the conclusion reached by the High Court in rejecting the writ petitions on the finding amongst others that the award passed was a consent award, including the fact that the compensation amount had been taken by the husband of the petitioner (in SLP(C) Nos. 22994-95 of 2016) and Power of Attorney holder of petitioner (in SLP(C) No. 19824 of 2016).

The fact remains that there is a consent award. Further, no case is made out that the stated consent was given under undue influence, coercion or it was obtained forcibly from the owner. Nor such declaration had been sought in that regard including questioning the authority of the person giving such consent and receiving compensation. Hence, no relief could be granted to the writ-petitioner(s) who are bound by the consent validly given at the time of passing of the award and accepting the compensation amount without any demur, either himself or through Power of Attorney. The High Court has rightly rejected the writ petition(s) in the fact situation of the present case.

The argument of the petitioners that the process is tainted has been noted by this Court in successive decisions, including in "B. Anjanappa & Ors. Vs. Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. & Ors." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 184 and "Vyalikaval House Building Cooperative Society by its Secretary Vs. V. Chandrappa & Ors." reported in (2007) 9 SCC 304 does not commend to us.

In these cases, the Court decided the issue on the basis of the opinion formed with regard to the functioning of the concerned society - as noted in the report of G.V.K. Rao Committee. The question posed before the High Court in the present cases, however, is entirely different. The question is: whether a person who had consented to the process culminating in the passing of

3

the award and also acting thereupon by accepting compensation without any demur can be permitted to assail the acquisition proceedings merely on the basis of subsequent opinion recorded by the Court in some other proceedings concerning different society and acquisition notification. The High Court, in our opinion, has rightly dismissed the writ petition(s), in the present cases.

Accordingly, we decline to interfere in these special leave petitions. The special leave petitions are dismissed accordingly.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

SLP(C) Nos. 21251 of 2021, 1689 of 2022 and 3869-3870 of 2022

These special leave petitions are concerning a separate reasoned order passed by the High Court on 02.08.2021.

Hence, de-linked and need to be heard independently on 21.03.2022.

Advance copy of petition be served on the Standing Counsel for the State of Karnataka.

(DEEPAK SINGH) (VIDYA NEGI)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

4