Karnataka High Court
Smt. Devamma W/O Nanjappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer ... on 21 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(3)KARLJ537, AIR 2008 (NOC) 633 (KAR.) = 2008 (1) AIR KAR R 573, 2008 (1) AIR KAR R 575, 2008 (1) AIR KANT HCR 573, 2008 A I H C 1425, (2008) 3 KANT LJ 537
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. All these civil petitions are filed by the appellants in various miscellaneous first appeals for prosecuting the miscellaneous first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the Act], as indigent persons pleading that the petitioners are unable to pay court fee required to be paid on the memorandum of such miscellaneous appeals.
Petitioners are all persons whose lands had come to be acquired by the state for construction of a reservoir known as Tonnur tank, as part of the Hemavathi Left Bank Canal project, as a sequel to the conclusion of Hemavathi dam across the river Hemavathi.
2. In respect of such lands acquired from the petitioners, while the land acquisition officer had made awards, determining the quantum of compensation, the land owners being dissatisfied with the compensation as awarded by the land acquisition officer, had sought for reference to the civil court in terms of Section 18 of the Act and had met with partial success. The petitioners feeling aggrieved that they have not been adequately compensated on their lands acquired, have evinced their interest to prosecute the matter by filing appeals before this Court under Section 54 of the Act, but are pleading their inability to pay commensurate court fee on the memorandum of such appeals on the premise that they cannot afford to pay court fee, as they do not have means to pay court fee etc. While there is delay of three days in preferring civil petitions Nos. 140, 142 and 143 of 2007, the other petitions appear to be in time in the sense the appeal are preferred in time.
3. Notices had been issued to the respondents. The state-acquiring authority is represented Ms Asha M. Kumbaragerimath, learned government pleader and the beneficiary - Cauvery Neeravari Nigam, which is as of now managing the irrigation system, is represented by M/s MRC Ravi Associates and Sri K.L. Ramesh.
4. In the circumstances, while the delay of three days in preferring the civil petitions and the appeal is condoned accepting the reasons assigned in the affidavits accompanying the applications for condoning delay, the petitions are formally admitted and taken up for disposal and in this context, this Court had occasion to examine the possibilities on an earlier occasion in terms of the order dated 19-11-2007, which reads as under:
Sri. K.L. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for M/s. MRC Ravi Associates submits that M/s. MRC Ravi Associates has filed vakalat for respondent - Kaveri Neeravari Nigama in all these matters.
In respect of CP Nos. 140, 142, 143, 172, 190 of 2007, Sri Mahantesh S. Hosmath, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the office objections regarding non-compliance was for non-filing of the application for condoning the delay of three days in filing civil petitions; that the copy of the application is now furnished to Smt. Asha Kumbaragerimath, learned Government Pleader.
Smt. Asha Kumbaragerimath, learned Government Pleader directed to take notice for first respondent - State in CP Nos. 140, 142, 143, 172, 190 of 2007 also.
M/s. M.R. C. Ravi Associates, Advocates, is directed to take notice for respondents 2 and 3 - Officers of the Nigama in CP Nos. 140, 142, 143, 172, 190 of 2007 as they claim to have entered appearance for these respondents in other civil petitions also.
Registry to verify and show the name of counsel correctly appearing for the respondents in all these civil petitions.
While Sri Mahantesh S. Hosmath, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were paid compensation only as per the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer and not as per the Judgment of the reference court; that substantial amounts are due to them in terms of the Judgment of the reference court and the petitioners being not satisfied with the compensation even as awarded by the reference court have preferred appeals seeking for further enhancement, but they are unable to pay requisite court fee as they have not been paid compensation even in terms of the Judgment of the reference court. While this submission is not disputed by learned Counsel for the respondents, what is pointed out is that the petitioners had been paid compensation in terms of the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 37,000/- per acre in respect of dry lands and at Rs. 96,000/- per acre in respect of wet lands and that such compensation was paid only recently in the year 2005 and therefore that could constitute sufficient means for them to pay court fee.
This aspect is disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioners who submits that the kinds though notified in terms of Section 4 Notification on 4.4.2002, possession had been taken even in the year 1996 which is not disputed by learned Government Pleader as well as learned Counsel appearing for Nigama; that the compensation amount received by the petitioners and as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has already been spent or utilized for their requirements; that the petitioners are in fact in debts and have no means for making payment of court fee etc., Be that as it may, it is a fact that the petitioners have not been paid compensation in terms of the Judgment of the reference court and they were dispossessed of the lands which was their means of livelihood even in the year 1996 and they are without any livelihood for the past 11 years or more.
In such circumstances, while even without further enquiry, an inference can be drawn by this Court about the inability of the petitioners to pay commensurate court fee in the appeals which is ad valorem ranging between 71/2% to 10% depending upon the value of the appeal and is a substantial amount and which according to the petitioners they are unable to pay.
List the matter for orders on 21.11.2007 as requested by learned Counsel for the parties so that the matters can be disposed of on that day.
In the meanwhile, necessary compliance by learned Counsel for the parties by doing the needful in the registry.
5. Appearing for the state, Ms Asha Kumbaragerimath, learned government pleader, submits that the state is not under any obligation to pay compensation amount to the petitioners at this sage and it is the responsibility of the beneficiary - Cauvery Neeravari Nigam - and if the Nigam is inclined to deposit the cost of acquisition to the government, that amount or part of the amount as awarded in terms of the judgment of the reference court can be distributed in favour of the land owners-petitioners to enable them to make good the court fee payable on the miscellaneous appeals.
6. Sri K.L. Ramesh, learned Counsel appearing for the Nigam submits that even on their own pleadings, the petitioners had indicated that they were getting substantial income from the land acquired and therefore it should be presumed that they do not have sufficient means to pay necessary court fee.
7. Sri Mahantesh S. Hosmath, learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand submits that the petitioners are all languishing with adequate income having lost their lands and source of livelihood; that they are in penury as of now and they are unable to pay the court fee etc.
8. Though in the normal course, for ordering such petitions under Order XLIV Rule 1 CPC, the government pleader is directed to obtain report from the tahsildar concerned and enquiry is also held in the context of the ability or otherwise of such persons for paying court fee in the light of the report, I am of the view that it is not necessary in these cases, as it is a fact that the lands of the petitioners had been acquired for a public purpose; that compensation as determined by the reference court has not been paid to them so far and substantial amounts are due to them from the government itself. In such circumstance, if the petitioners pleaded their inability to pay court fee, it is one required to be accepted at its face value without any farther enquiry.
Accordingly, all these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are permitted to prosecute the miscellaneous first appeals as indigent persons, subject to usual conditions.