Bangalore District Court
) Sri. M. Hanumanthappa S/O vs Unknown on 29 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2018.
PRESENT:
Shri I.F. Bidari, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl)
II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
L.A.C. No.69/2009
Petitioners:
1) Sri. M. Hanumanthappa s/o
Muniyappa, since deceased by his
legal Representatives
1(a) Smt. Shanthamma w/o late. M.
Hanumanthappa, 60 years,
1(b) Smt. Jayanthi w/o late. H.
Shekar, 32 years,
1(c) Sri. Sunil Kumar s/o late. M.
Hanumanthappa, 33 years,
1(d) Smt. Mamatha w/o Sri.
Shivaraj, 36 years,
All are residing at Sonnenahalli
village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluka.
2) Sri. Munivenkatappa, s/o Sri.
Ramaiah, 59 years, Sonnenahalli
village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
(Petitioners by Sri.K.T.G., Advocate)
-VERSUS-
Cont'd..
-2- L.A.C. No.69/2009
Respondent :
The Land Acquisition Officer,
Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board, No.14/3, 2nd floor,
Rastrautthana Parishat Building,
Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru.
(Respondent by Sri.DBG, Advocate)
-0-
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under section 18(3)(b) of Land Acquisition Act 1894.
.2. The brief facts of the petition are:
The petitioners are the owners of the land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.101/1 and 12 guntas in Sy.No.10/3 respectively of Sonnenahalli village. The respondent has acquired the aforesaid lands for industrial development through notification dated 15.05.1999. The award notice was not served on the petitioners. The petitioners were not knowing the fact of the award passed by the L.A.O. The petitioners did file objections before the L.A.O., contending that the value of acquired land is more, but without affording them an opportunity of hearing, the award has been passed. The petitioners ultimately sought information from the S.L.A.O., and through a letter dated 20.11.2008 of S.L.A.O., the petitioners came to know that the respondent has acquired the Cont'd..
-3- L.A.C. No.69/2009 aforesaid lands of the petitioners through award dated 11.11.2002.
The market value fixed by the S.L.A.O. to the acquired land of the petitioners is on lower-side. Therefore, the petitioners did file an application before the S.L.A.O., on 13.01.2009, requesting to make the reference to the Civil Court u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, for enhancement of the compensation awarded to the acquired land. The instant petition of the petitioners is well within the limitation as same is being filed after the receipt of information on 20.11.2008 as mentioned above. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners is to direct the respondent to make a reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, to the Civil Court (reference court) for fixing the fair market value and enhancement of the market value of acquired land.
.3. Pursuant to the service of notice, the respondent appeared through his counsel. The respondent has not filed the statement objections to the petition of the petitioners filed u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act.
.4. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, have examined the claimant No.2 Munivenkatappa as PW.1. The documents at Exs.P.1 to 5 are marked for the petitioners. The respondent has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence Cont'd..
-4- L.A.C. No.69/2009 on his behalf. I have heard Sri. HRS, Advocate for Sri. KTG,
Advocate on behalf of the petitioners and heard Sri. DBG, the learned counsel for the respondent. The written argument is filed on behalf of the petitioners. Perused the records and the written argument.
.5. The points that would arise for consideration of this court are:
1) Whether the petitioners prove that they have submitted petition u/s.18(1) of L.A. Act before SLAO within prescribed period?
2) Whether the respondent be directed to make reference to this court as provided u/s. 18 of L.A. Act?
3) What order?
.6. My findings on the above points are:
Point No.1: Affirmative, Point No.2: Affirmative, Point No.3: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .7. Points 1 and 2: These points are inter-related, hence, taken together for discussion, for convenience, also to avoid Cont'd..
-5- L.A.C. No.69/2009 repetition of facts. The PW.1 Munivenkatappa s/o Ramaiah, has filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination, reiterating most of the petition averments. The documents at Exs.P.1 to 5 are marked during the evidence of PW.1. The Ex.P.1 is a copy of protest petition submitted by the petitioners u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, before the L.A.O. on 13.01.2009. This Ex.P.1 is bearing seal of the S.L.A.O./respondent, for having received the said protest petition on 13.01.2009. The PW.1 among other facts has stated in his chief-examination that the petitioners 1(a) to 1(d) are the owners of the land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.10/1, whereas, he is an owner to the extent of 13 guntas in Sy.No.10/3, respectively, of Sonnenahalli village. The PW.1 further states that the petitioners 1(a) to 1(d) are the legal representatives of deceased M. Hanumanthappa and he has deposed before the court for himself and on behalf of remaining petitioners. The PW.1 states that the respondent has acquired the aforesaid land for the purpose of industrial development through a notification dated 15.05.1999, issued by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. The PW.1 states that himself and the remaining petitioners did file objections before the S.L.A.O., but the S.L.A.O. without hearing them, fixed the compensation on lower side. The PW.1 further states that the award notice has not been served on the Cont'd..
-6- L.A.C. No.69/2009 petitioners, as such, they for having waited sufficiently for a long period, ultimately sought information under Right to Information Act 2001, consequent upon which, the L.A.O., through a letter dated 20.11.2008 informed them that the award has been passed on 11.11.2002 with-regard to their aforesaid acquired lands, till then, they were not aware of passing of an award. The PW.1 further states that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. to the aforesaid acquired lands is very much less, inadequate as their acquired lands are furnishing less and were valuing more price than the compensation fixed by the S.L.A.O. The PW.1 states that thereafter the receipt of information from the S.L.A.O. dated 20.11.2008, through objections before the S.L.A.O. through their application dated 13.01.009, requested the S.L.A.O., to make a reference to the Civil Court u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, for adjudication of the compensation, but in vain, since the S.L.A.O. has not made a reference. Therefore, left with no alternative, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. The PW.1 states that the petition filed by them u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act is within the limitation, hence, prayer of the PW.1, to direct the respondent to make a reference as sought in this petition. The Ex.P.4 is the information furnished by the S.L.A.O., through a letter dated 13/14.11.2008, to M. Shivaraju s/o Munivenkatappa, pursuant to his letter dated 15.10.2008, Cont'd..
-7- L.A.C. No.69/2009 where-under, furnished the information that the compensation awarded to their aforesaid acquired lands has been deposited in the Civil Court, Bengaluru. This Ex.P.4 corroborates the oral evidence of PW.1 and their protest petition that pursuant to the information sought by the son of claimant No.2, the S.L.A.O. has informed with-regard to the acquisition of the aforesaid land of the petitioners and depositing of the compensation amount awarded to the said lands, in this court. The Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5 are the certified copies of endorsement dated 09.05.2005, where-under, the acquisition of the aforesaid lands of the petitioners for having acquired, pursuant to the preliminary notification and final notification issued u/ss. 28(1) and 28(4), respectively, under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (here-in-after referred as KIAD Act), is being acquired by the respondent through an award dated 11.11.2002. The Ex.P.3 is an award dated 11.11.2002, where-under, the S.L.A.O. through the said award dated 11.11.2002, has acquired the aforesaid lands of the petitioners along with other lands under the provisions of KIAD Act, for establishment of industries. The copy of the letter dated 15.10.2008 submitted by M. Shivaraju s/o Munivenkatappa under Right to Information Act, 2005, in the office of S.L.A.O., praying information with-regard to the aforesaid land of the petitioners is Cont'd..
-8- L.A.C. No.69/2009 on record, same is bearing seal of the S.L.A.O. office and his official has received the same on 15.10.2008. The Exs.P.2 to 5 coupled with this copy of letter dated 15.08.2008 submitted by M.Shivaraju s/o Munivenkatappa before the S.L.A.O. for furnishing details with-
regard to the acquired lands of the petitioners and the information furnished pursuant to thereon, marked at Exs.P.2 to 5, evidences and proves the fact that the petitioners consequent upon furnishing information by the S.L.A.O. with-regard to the acquisition of the aforesaid lands of the petitioners, then only, they came to know about the acquisition of their lands by the respondent. The respondent has not at all cross-examined the PW.1. Thus, the oral evidence of PW.1 and the above discussed documentary evidence marked through him remained unchallenged. The respondent has not produced any single piece of documentary evidence to prove that prior to 20.11.2008, the petitioners were aware of acquisition of their lands by the respondent or notice u/s. 12(2) of L.A. Act was being served on the petitioners at any time before that date informing about the acquisition of their aforesaid land, under the award dated 11.11.2002, copy of which is marked at Ex.P.3. Thus, it is made clear that the petitioners came to know about the acquisition of their lands thereafter only the letter dated 13/14.11.2008 marked Cont'd..
-9- L.A.C. No.69/2009 at Ex.P.4 was furnished to M. Shivaraju s/o Munivenkatappa, till then they were not aware of the same. The Ex.P.1 and the oral evidence of PW.1 proves that soon after receipt of information as aforesaid through a letter marked at Ex.P.4, the petitioners have filed the petition u/s. 18(1) on 13.01.2009, copy of which is marked at Ex.P.1 and the said protest petition is well within 90 days from the date of receipt of letter marked at Ex.P.4. In the written argument, it is stated that as per the ratio laid down by their Lordships in the ruling reported in ILR 2002 KAR 1288 (in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Lalasa Husensa Choudhari). The provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act, is applicable in the petition filed u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act. As already discussed above, the protest petition of the petitioners u/s. 18(1), copy of which is marked at Ex.P.1 filed before the S.L.A.O. is well within 90 days after the knowledge of acquisition of the petitioners' lands, but the respondent has not made the reference to this court, within 90 days after receipt of petition from the petitioners u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, as contemplated u/s. 18(2) of L.A. Act, as such, the petitioners have filed this petition u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act, on 09.09.2009, which is received in the court on 10.09.2009. Therefore, it is made clear that well within 3 years 90 days from the date of protest petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, the petitioners have filed the instant Cont'd..
- 10 - L.A.C. No.69/2009 petition. As per the amended provisions of Karnataka State Amendment brought into section 18 of L.A. Act, the petitioners shall have to file the petition u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act, within 3 years 90 days, after filing of the petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed this petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, within 3 years 90 days from the date of presentation of petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, copy of which is marked at Ex.P.1. Therefore, there is no question of delay in filing this petition u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act. This apart, as per the ratio laid down by their lordships in the ruling reported in (2005)8 SCC 709 (In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman), the provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 is not applicable in the petition filed u/s. 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act. At the cost of repetition, it be stated that the evidence on record proves that the respondent has not served the notice u/s. 12(2) of L.A. Act on the petitioners, after passing an award dated 11.11.2002, as such, the petitioners after coming to know about the acquisition of their lands on 20.11.2008, did file the petition u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, before the L.A.O., subsequently, have filed this petition before this court on 10.09.2009, which is well within 3 years 90 days. The evidence on record proves that the S.L.A.O./respondent has not made the reference u/s. 18 of L.A. Act to this court, consequent upon, the protest petition filed by the Cont'd..
- 11 - L.A.C. No.69/2009 petitioners u/s. 18(1) of L.A. Act, in-respect of the acquired lands of the petitioners. Therefore, it is just to direct the respondent to make a reference to this court u/s. 18 of L.A. Act, in-respect of the aforesaid acquired lands of the petitioners. Hence, I hold points 1 and 2 in the affirmative, for consideration.
.8. Point No.3: In view of my findings on the afore- mentioned points 1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners u/s.18(3)(b) of L.A. Act 1894 is allowed.
The respondent is hereby directed to make a reference to this court, as contemplated u/s.18 of L.A. Act, in respect of the acquired lands of the petitioners, measuring 1 acre 27 guntas in Sy.No.10/1 and the land measuring 13 guntas in Sy.No.10/3 of Sonnenahalli village, K.R. Pura Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka, Bengaluru, within 90 days from this date, along with other relevant papers, statements, as contemplated u/s.19 of L.A. Act.
Parties to bear their own cost.
(Dictated to the J.W., computerized by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of September 2018) (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. & S. Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
- 12 - L.A.C. No.69/2009
AN N E X U R E
1. Witnesses Examined for Petitioners:
PW.1: Munivenkatappa
2. Documents marked for the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of protest petition
Ex.P.2 : Endorsement
Ex.P.3 : Copy of award
Ex.P.4 : Intimation letter
Ex.P.5 : Endorsement
3. Witnesses examined for the respondent:
Nil
4. Documents marked for the respondent:
Nil (I.F. Bidari), II Addl. C.C. & S. Judge, Bengaluru.
IBRAHIM Digitally signed by IBRAHIM
FEERASAB BIDARI
DN: cn=IBRAHIM FEERASAB
FEERASAB BIDARI,ou=HIGH
COURT,o=GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN
BIDARI Date: 2018.10.04 13:22:23 IST
Cont'd..