Karnataka High Court
Mrs Seetharatna K Bhat vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 July, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.22669/2012 (LA-KHB)
BETWEEN:
Mrs.Seetharatna K.Bhat,
Aged 65 years,
W/o T.S.Krishna Bhat,
R/at Pais Garden,
Gundu Rao Lane,
Mannagudda,
Mangalore-575 003. ...Petitioner
(By Sri B.V.Acharya, Sr.Counsel for Sri B.L.Acharya)
AND:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Housing Board,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bangalore-560 009. ... Respondent
(By Sri H.M.Manjunath, Advocate)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 21.6.2012
passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Bantwal in LAC
No.5/07, which is produced herewith as Annexure-A.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 21.6.2012 (Annexure-A) passed by the Reference Court (Court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bantwal, D.K.) in LAC No.5/2007. The detailed advertance to the facts of the case may not be necessary, as this petition is being disposed of on the question of law. The application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the said Act' for short) for directing the respondent to make a reference to the Reference Court is rejected on the ground that the petitioner is basing her claim on the adverse possession against the Government. The Reference Court has held that she has to establish her title over the lands and that therefore the question of issuing the direction for sending the reference would not arise.
2. Sri B.V.Acharya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that even if there is a dispute regarding the title, the Land Acquisition Officer can be directed to make the reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the said Act. In support of his submission, he relies on the Apex Court's decision in the case of SRI PRASADA RAO 3 MIKKILINENI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF A.P. AND OTHERS reported in (2000) 9 SCC 371. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow:
"4. We find that there is a dispute about the title as also regarding computation of appropriate compensation for acquiring the land in question. Hence, this is a fit case where the High Court should have allowed the writ petition and should have directed the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Only on this short ground, therefore, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to make a reference, under Section 18 read with Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, to the appropriate court within eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order at his end."
3. He also sought to draw support from this Court's decision in the case of P.KESHAVA MURTHY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in 2005(4) KCCR 2726, wherein it is held that, if in respect of one piece of land, both the Government as well as the third parties are claiming right over the property, such dispute has to be referred to the Reference Court under Section 30 of the said Act.
4
4. Sri H.M.Manjunath, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for the dismissal of this petition.
5. To examine the sustainability of the Reference Court's order, it is necessary to refer to the provisions in Section 18(1) and Section 30 of the said Act, which read as follows:
"18. Reference to court:
(1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.
30. Dispute as to apportionment.- When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court."
6. The term 'person interested' found in both Sections 18 and 30 is defined in Section 3(b) of the said Act. It is as follows:
"3(b) the expression "person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a 5 person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.
7. The term 'person interested in the land' is not given an exhaustive or exclusionary definition. Its inclusive definition has extended the concept of a 'person interested' to the widest of amplitudes. As a necessary consequence, apart from the land owners, a mortgagee, a tenant, a lessee, a grantee, a person having easement over the land and a host of others would also come within the phraseology employed in Section 9(3) of the said Act. In taking this view, I am fortified by the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. GURDIAL SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1984 P & H 1. I may usefully refer to the Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of V.LAKKANNA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.) AND OTHERS v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1990 KAR 192, wherein it is held that a 'person interested' includes persons having no interest in the land acquired, but claiming interest in the compensation to be awarded. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted herein below: 6
"7. He submitted, relying on the above judgment, that only a person having an interest in the immovable property was entitled to apportionment of compensation. It is true that the Division Bench has taken the view that only a person having an interest in the land acquired can claim compensation. But the decision of the Supreme Court in Sundarlal's case (AIR 1968 SC 366) was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. The Supreme Court in that case interpreted the expression `person interested' as defined in S.3(b) of the Act and held that it had a wider meaning, in that not only the person who has got an interest in the immovable property acquired but also a person who, though not having any interest in the immovable property acquired, has an interest to claim compensation, would have to be regarded as a person interested for the purpose of compensation proceedings."
8. It is also helpful to refer to the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of PURAN v. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1976 HIMACHAL PRADESH 16, wherein it is held that a person in occupation of the property, whether in capacity of tenant or of licensee, is a 'person interested'. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of BAHORI LAL v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1970 ALLAHABAD 414 has taken the considered view that, from the mere fact that 7 the names of the petitioners do not stand recorded as tenants of the plots in question in the revenue records, it cannot be pleaded that they were not the persons interested in raising objections to the notifications. Even the non-owner of a property can legitimately claim the compensation, if the compulsory acquisition of land has affected his interest adversely.
9. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of GANDHAMOYEE DEVI v. COLLECTOR OF KAMRUP, GAUHATI reported in AIR 1982 GAUHATI 63, has held that any person affected by extinguishment of a right in the land is the person interested. The relevant portions of the said judgment are extracted herein below:
"5. Now let us consider as to whether the appellant is a person interested or not. The meaning of the expression "person interested" will be a relevant consideration for determining point No.(iii) as well. Therefore, it is necessary to explain the meaning of the expression as understood in "the Act". The effect of Land Acquisition is to relinquish the rights of the owners in the land and to vest it exclusively in the Government. As such, any person affected by the extinguishment of the right in the land comes within the provision of S.3 (b) of "the Act".
......... ............. ............ ............. ......... ......... 8 S. 11 of "the Act" provides that Collector must inquire into the respective interest of the person claiming interest and it is a condition precedent for making a valid award by the Collector."
10. Another judgment of the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court is also of immense value for deciding this case. In the case of M/S.SHASHIKANT GOPALDAS & CO., AND ANOTHER v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AT AHMEDABAD reported in AIR 1971 GUJARAT 278, it is held that the tenant holding over has the right to get the compensation. When the acquisition takes place, the compensation has to be paid to all those, who are displaced on account of the compulsory acquisition of lands. It cannot be restricted to the title-holders. When the land is compulsorily acquired, it results not only in the deprivation of the property but also of livelihood; therefore the determination and payment of compensation to the displaced persons have also got to be inclusive.
11. Thus, considering the statutory provisions and the interpretation put on them, the Reference Court's reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 18(3)(b) 9 of the said Act is unsustainable and unsupportable. Its view that the respondent cannot be directed to make the reference, as the petitioner has not established her claim of lawful adverse possession as against the Government, does not stand the reasoned scrutiny of law. In P.Keshava Murthy's case (supra), this Court has taken the considered view that the reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the said Act has to be tried as if it is a regular suit. Therefore, the Reference Court's order, dated 21.6.2012 (Annexure-A) is set aside. The Reference Court shall direct the respondent to make the reference of the matter to it (the Reference Court).
12. It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is expressed on the merits of the claims of the petitioner. Whether the petitioner was in possession of the land and for what length of time are all the questions on which the findings are to be delivered by the Reference Court on holding the enquiry.
13. At this juncture, Smt. Pushpalatha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question for several years. She would pray for a direction to the Reference Court for the speedy 10 disposal of the matter. The Reference Court is directed to act expeditiously in the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD/LB