APMC & BMRCL Dispute: Differences Between State & Its Entities Must Be Resolved On Separate Platform Instead Of Courts- Karnataka HC Sets Up Committee
The Karnataka High Court has set up a committee for the purpose of resolving the dispute between APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) with regard to the compensation.
The Court held that the differences between the State and its entities must be resolved in a separate platform instead of the courts.
A Single Bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed, “… differences between State and its entities ought to be resolved in a separate platform and cannot land up for adjudication before the Courts which even otherwise are over burdened. The State and its entities are to contribute to lowering matters that end up before Courts for adjudication in a meaningful manner.”
The Bench referred the subject matter of the said dispute to a committee formed by it consisting of The Chief Secretary, Karnataka Government; APMC; BMRCL; Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board; Principal Secretary to Government, Commerce and Industries; and Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB.
Advocate Nanda Kishore appeared on behalf of the petitioner while AGA R. Srinivasgowda, Advocate P.V. Chandrashekar, and Advocate K. Krishna appeared on behalf of the respondents.
In this case, a land came to be acquired for the benefit of BMRCL and the only dispute at present was with regard to the quantum of compensation. A Government Order was passed whereby it was provided that for the land belonging to the government and other autonomous authorities the rate that would be payable would be in terms of the Guideline Value under the Stamp and Registration Act as in force.
A meeting was then held and the proceedings were drawn wherein the price was fixed for the said land. As per the petitioner, such proceedings were not binding as there was no representative of the petitioner in such meeting while BMRCL took a stand it was not entitled to bear any further compensation. Hence, the petitioner filed a plea seeking to quash the endorsement and sought a direction to the respondents considering the representation and making a reference in terms of Section 29(3) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel for the parties noted, “Accordingly, it would be appropriate to refer the subject matter of present dispute to a Committee … The said Committee would be headed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the other entities referred to above would be the participants. The Chief Secretary is at liberty to enlarge the constitution of the Committee if found necessary. The said Committee to be constituted to endeavour to settle the dispute amicably taking note of the constituent entities all being State Authorities.”
The Court clarified that if the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, is of the opinion that the matter cannot be resolved due to any legal impediment and is a matter to be decided by the court, the matter may be referred back to it.
“All contentions of the parties are kept open. It is clarified that all disputes and contentions of the petitioner and respondents which is the subject matter of present proceedings, stand referred to the Committee referred to above. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to endeavour to resolve the dispute within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order”, directed the Court.
The Court further noted that the above approach is not only the mandate of the law but would go a long way towards avoiding disputes between State and its entities contributing to increased workload.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title- Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer-1 & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2023:KHC:25609)
