Karnataka High Court
Smt Hanamawwa vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA. '
DATED THIS THE 018'!" DAY OF APRIL,__ _
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE }§NANi)fiv
WRIT PETITION NO. 1.2e99 (E2007
BETWEEN: A} it I
1. Hanamawwa W/0 L€¢f:1Kap_paVi_};?att£1.vd"'i _
Aged about 58 years, A * . t *
Residing at C.himma}agif'~ V _ _ «V
Basavana _Bag_ewadli_ Ta.1Lj..i<. ..
Bijapur 1:)1%:,tri;*;'t_._._.' . '
2. Sharaiiapipzi ' S«:/to VA:_f1i'Vepp'a. Battfad (Sidnath)
Aged abou.tj'.53 3;{ear§s,~s..j
Residing at Cii1'i-:1"1'a1a;g.i_T Taluk,
Basavana Bagewadi 'TfS1'hJk,
Bijapuf'DistVriet._. " "
... Petitioners
" '(By ..Metagudda, Advocate)
_ 1. The S.téLtc'ef Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
H 'A Department of Revenue.
Building,
{Bangalore -» 560 001.
ft.
kt,
€\}
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Upper Krishna PI'0_]€Ct.
Almatti, Basavana Bagewadi
Bijapur District.
3. The Commissioner,
Rehabilitation Reconstruction 4
And Land Acquisition 1
Upper Krishna Project.
N avanagar, Bagalkot.
4. The General Manager
Upper Krishna Project, 3
Navanagar, Bagalk'ot_."j.
__ 1 Respondents
[By Shri Shivakumar Teiig"li,:'AGA]"s.__ V' x
This under Articles 226 and
227 ofythle' praying to direct the
2"" respondent_to:"'referl'i't.1fie_. matter to the Civil Court
under Section _18_{li.}_ "of:..'t'the Land Acquisition Act in
pursujarice of application filed by the petitioners
'C 9. "datecl 11' 1999, Annexure--F.
._ hp-e_titjo'n coming on for preliminary hearing 'B'
Group this the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petition coming on for preliminary hearing ('B' *jVC'§li'oup) is considered for final disposal.
2. Heard the counsei for the petitioners and the respondents.
3. The facts are as follows:
The petitioners contend that one-._: u it Basappa Pattad, the husband 01';
the second petitioner were ownefs of _the' land Sy.No.268/1 (268/2 Jmcjtifef _ChiinInatagi¥§ Village, Bijapur Taluk and 14 acres, out of which 2 guntas is Basappa Pattad is said and the first petitioiler is tepresentative. The land in question ./beteniddacqttdired by Respondent No.2 as a ._V_par:t'§'«ofE Upp'er..Krishna Project, as it falls within the 's.t1Abme'rgencei area of the project, under the provisions of I§andéAct1ii;;3ia.t'ion Act, in the year 1995. The petitioner 'V.,hO\V€V{2v1.'t.l€aI'I}t that an award has been passed in the V"deV'yeaf"A_t1999, whereby the compensation is pegged at Rs.54,000/-- per acre. This was not to the knowledge of the petitioners.
4. It is their case that the land is situated banks of river Krishna and that the petitioners laid _ pipes to draw water from the electric motor pumps to liftsthe water' for cultivation. The petitionersi'i'=hlvai..re sought tolfiproduce material evidence todehionstrate~--.t'hat~tthe lands are so irrigated. The petitioners have fliirfnilshed copies of record of rights to show that the land {was further establish that the source ofwjaterllaslzfioleyf.4 In order to avoid delay in the V. A exeetitioia. of U'p'per___Krishna Project and to avoid delay in 'p:Vel[yI:1Ae:{_1pfi.¢jpf.VA:f'2}T_Qper compensation, it is claimed that a consensusfwjas reached amongst the land owners and the l respondent, for payment of reasonable A V~:ifclompensation and therefore the value was fixed at Rps.54,000/-- per acre in respect of dry land and Rs.l,l4,000/~-- per acre in respect of irrigated land. The first petitioner believes that her husband an'd'~.,gthe second petitioner were asked to affix their signatu:re.s; the agreement so reached by consensus of an d award dated 02.05.1998. They t-§&efa'a1sa_cai1ad'apaigtcir execute an Indemnity Boundin this"regard,?:'i'hVelsecorldifl respondent however passedlvlvllian' award. classiifying the land at Chimmalagi lands belonging to the petitioners are though the lands were and wasubeing lifted from the river toHirr'iga;'te Hence the authorities have proceeded on the"ejrrloia.:eoi_:s presumption that the land was 'dry lar1"d,_:V 'Thelirst. petitioners husband and the ipetitiionerl all along believed that they have to the award on the basis that the lar1d..was' classified as wet land. However the same Thaving"b'een treated as dry land, the compensation a.rpaya--o'&le is Rs.54,000/~ which has been received by the
-first petitioners husband and the second petitioner. r/,7 <::> 6 This they have done. on account of their iiliteracy and since they were in dire need of the money whichpwas paid as compensation for valuable iand Therefore it is claimed that notWithstan.di1ig"._A it receipt of part of the compensation, deprived of just compensation in respect of land which has been acognired since the compensation payablzetflin irrigated land is Rs.1,I4,000/-- 'per acre', a'reV":.evn'Vtit1ed for the remaining aino1§;1'1t,. _ It iist their "'fi1'1't'ner case that the simiiariywsitttatedxtpersons hatdtapproached this Court by way otF\v2£--r1"-it' petitions-. _::1i'1'»'l:' .='W.P.Nos.24286--24»299 /2001 and the san1eVWe.1'eA.a.11Vo{ved by an order of this Court, " " Waited 23,07,200i." """
V ..::p"etiti0ner had filed an application under Sec.ti0nV.1.8. the Land Acquisition Act before the second V'-».resp0nd__e'nt, requesting that the matter be referred to ""Vt.Civ_ii':'.--'Court for adjudication, seeking enhancement of compensation in the above terms. That inspite of receipt of the application, no action was taken and since the petitioners were advised to file a civil suit competent Court for a declaration that agcifeelnierfié it dated 02.05.1998 was null mandatory injunction etc. suit*--was sopfiled" and tiietfl same was dismissed for Th-e:pe:titi'oners all along have believed .isu«i\t_Vvvas'the remedy that was open to thern'..a.1*id.Vhence proceeded to file an app3_ica:ti'on _ to 7_restoreVl"th'e"' suit which was dismissleldl the petitioners were advised'«to'sa'rne, since they were advised to approach" thisVCou'rt,l'the present writ petition is filed. " {.63.-."'TI'1"'e.'counseltor the petitioners while reiterating above.lpvcirctcilmstances, would submit that if there is a dire£3tioj:1'to3'co11sider the case of the petitioners under :"Soectiozn'~--l8 of the Act, the petitioners would be in a pos'ition to establish their case, that the lands acquired f <;fT;> were in fact irrigated lands and that they were entitled to compensation at Rs.l,l4,000/-~ iristear-;1__ of Rs.54,000/-- which has been paid by the resporide-njts'i.n respect of said acquisition.
7. The Government Advocate'"on_ hand would submit that in the admitted'circurnstances':Tthtat~.'V there was an award by V 'hand-...th_.at":Vtthefirstt' petitior1er's husband and tsjectond petitioner have Voluntarily surrendered have received the compens.ation- cornpufted;-iéi2i.th.out' demur, it is not open for the this remote point of time to raise anttissue as to 'rvl_.z»ether the lands acquired were A_ lands. The question of any such 'coi1sidveratioriv,._at this remote point of time would result intthte being placed in difficulty as regards in resptect of the factual aspect of the said issue. As the A records may not be readily available for them to cross Vferify and to ascertain the case of the petitioners. Q. in./' 9 Therefore, he would submit that on account of the inordinate delay in approaching this Court and for the above reasons, the petition be dismissed.
8. While the submission made by the'lf}:ox'ernrne1ilt Advocate does carry weight substance in What is conten_ded,l'the..factr'ernains':thalt"g the petitioners have been dle'p._rliV'ed of theirv-llalnfd and if the land in questionwlfas inlfact" land, the just compensation payableVV_oi1ghtv__lt<f:) and if on account of A._cii*cun:1stances the first petitiolr_1'e1*?s' the second petitioner have received of'theilfcompensation notwithstanding thatt_itl_Was "11'i1i_tna1 consent, the application seeking 'r:éfereI1ce~toviothe petitioners' case under Section 18 ought to lhavel b'ee__nf'placed before the Court in order that the petitioners' are in a position to establish their case for A "t°addit_ional compensation. If in fact the petitioners are in position to establish that the lands acquired were irrigated lands, in which event in terms of the consent award, they would be entitled to additional compensation and such other benefits. Furth.er.ilrir:'V*iew of the petitioners having approached K V' considerable delay, it would petitioners are denied interest fofithe bellate'd° after which they have approached this
9. The Government would further submit that in terms of the aw=ardf_';t.he payment of interest on the' not provided for and therefore of considering payment of interest would' not laris.el"_,even, if the petitioners succeed in vcstablishinlg=th_at_.'the land is irrigated land. This eont.er1tion'<*JVou_ld have to be viewed in the circumstance thatthepetitioners if have been paid the compensation tupayable" in terms of the consent award on the basis that A f"thel'l'and was dry land, they have had the benefit only of Rls.5-4,000/-- per acre, that they have received as ,1;
CW compensation. Since the State had the benefit of the remaining amount, it is not open to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to any such interest:V:'ohnf.th.e plea that the consent award does not protzideieafoii same. Therefore, though the ;pe"ti'ti'one-rs entitled to interest for the delayedkperiod Civil shall work out the period, which petitioners shall legitimately beventitlffdlllto rgsoowrer interest on the payments that were the date the compensation "cthe"'rate'cornCputed earlier. writ petition is allowed. The second respondent' to refer the matter to the p_ Ci\vfii_Colurt undiervfiection 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition .,pu,rsn'>a.n't.__to the application of the petitioner at the Civil Court shall consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. However in so {arias payment of interest is concerned, the Civil Court shall appropriately deny interest for the period during
5.527
4. 3 which the petitioners remained dormant without seeking such compensation.
sa/-
swk