Karnataka High Court
Smt. Lachamamma D/O Nagamma Ane W/O ... vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 February, 2013
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NOS.83578-83581/2011 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 Smt. Lachmamma,
D/o. Nagamma and
W/o. Rudragouda
Age: 50 years
2 Smt. Palakshamma
D/o. Nagamma
Age: 45 years
3 Shanmukappa
S/o. Nagamma
Age: 43 years
All are agriculturists
And R/o Kolbal Village
Tq. Sindhanur
Dist: Raichur
4 Shambangouda
S/o. Channagouda
2
Age 50 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Kolbal Village
Tq. Sindhanur
Dist: Raichur
6 Rayappa
S/o. Yamanappa
Age: 55 years,
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Kolbal Village
Tq. Sindhanur
Dist: Raichur. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. Ravindra Reddy &
Smt. Girija Patil, Advs.)
AND:
The Assistant Commissioner &
Land Acquisition Officer,
Lingasugur Sub-Division
Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Shivakumar Tengli, AGA)
. . . .
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
certiorari quashing endorsement dated 08.02.2011 in
No.LA TBP.66.83-84/2115 vide Annexure-K land
endorsement dated 08.02.2011 in No.LA.TBP.66.83-
84/2114, vide Annexure-L and award dated 31.05.2000 in
3
No.LAQ/TBP/66/83-84/28-A vide Annexure-D and award
dated 30.05.2000 in No:LAQ/TBP/15/75-76 (28-A) vide
Annexure-C, etc.,
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing in 'B' Group this day, Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions challenging the endorsements issued by the respondents declining to grant compensation to the petitioners at the rate, which is awarded by this Court, as they have already paid the amount as determined by the Reference Court.
2. These petitioners are all the owners of several Survey numbers. Their lands were acquired for Tungabhadra project. Section 4(1) notification was issued. As they did not file objections, Section 6(1) notification came to be issued and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 31.01.1991 awarding a sum of Rs.3,200/- per 4 acre. They did not seek any reference. However, persons who are similarly placed, whose lands were acquired under the very same notification sought for reference to the Reference Court. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.21,000/- per acre. It is not in dispute that the said amount has been awarded. After the award by the Reference Court, an appeal was filed in M.A.No.33/1998 before the Principal District Judge at Raichur, who allowed the appeal partially and enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.26,000/- per acre. The petitioners filed an application under Section 28A of the Act within the period stipulated, claiming the benefit of Rs.26,000/- per acre as awarded by the Reference Court. The said application was considered and an award was passed. Being aggrieved by the award passed in M.A.No.33/1998, an appeal was filed before this Court and the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.38,000/- 5 per acre. Subsequently, the petitioners submitted application for seeking re-determination of compensation at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per acre on the basis of High Court Award passed in the appeal. The said request is rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned endorsements contends that under Section 28A of the Act, persons who have not sought for reference and who have not even filed any appeal are entitled to payment of compensation at the rate at which this Court has determined the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, he submits that the impugned endorsements require to be set-aside.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submits that under Section 28A of the Act, compensation 6 payable is in accordance with the compensation determined by the Court, which is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and not the High Court and therefore, the endorsement issued is in accordance with law.
5. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate determined by the High Court in an appeal preferred against the award of the Reference Court?
In fact, the said question did give raise to a debate in the Apex Court and the matter was referred to the Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another V/s. Hansoli devi and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2184 relying on the judgment of three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. 7 Rodrigueses V/s. Land Acquisition Officer reported in (1996)6 SCC 746 held that re-determination of the compensation as envisaged under Section 28-A of the Act has to be computed from the date of the award of the Reference Court, on the basis of which re-determination is sought and not the order of the Appellate Court dealing with the appeal against the award of the Reference Court.
6. In the case of Union of India v. Bant ram (dead) by LRs., reported in (1996)4 SCC 537 while dealing with the said question, the Supreme Court had held as under in paragraph 4.
"4. ..... Section 28-A itself specifically refers to applicability of Chapter III; in other words, Chapter III would be applicable to a reference made under Section 18 to the Court. The marginal note indicates re-determination of the compensation on the basis of the award of the court. Section 3(d) defines 'court' to mean a 8 principal civil court of original jurisdiction or a Court of Special Judicial Officer. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 - A envisages "allowing applications", i.e., reference application filed under Section 18 in Part III. Moreover Section 54 falls in Chapter VIII of the Act. Therefore, judgment and decree of the appellate court/High Court does not encompass the award of the court referred to in Section 28-A. The controversy is no longer res integra. Babu Ram V. State of U.P. and hosts of other decisions following that, cover the field. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the application for re-determination of the compensation under Section 28-A would not lie after the judgment of the High Court under Section 54 of the Act."
7. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Apex Court on the said subject, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation at the rate determined by the High Court in an appeal as it does not fall within the 9 definition of word `Court' used in Section 28A of the Act. In view of the impugned endorsement, there is no merit in these petitions. Petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS