Karnataka High Court
Sudesh S/O. S.N. Shripati Acharya vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 February, 2013
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No. 75776/2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN :
SUDESH
S/O. S.N. SHRIPATI ACHARYA
AGE. 45 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. H.NO. 65, AKSHAYA COLONY
NEAR RAVI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAKASH K. JAWALKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHARMILA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENT DIRECTING HIM TO RELEASE THE
AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
FORTHWITH.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to the respondent to release the compensation amounts on account of the compulsory acquisition of the lands in question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prakash K. Jawalkar submits that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the property in question. He submits that in view of the dismissal of the plaintiffs' I.As. in O.S.No.50/2011, there is no legal impediment for the respondent to release the amounts. He relies on this Court's decision in the case of J.M. Sohanlal vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, reported in AIR (1996) KAR 171. He read out para 7 of this decision:
7. It is not the case of the respondent that anyone of the contingencies envisaged by Section 31(2) has prevented him from making the payment of the amount held payable to the petitioners. His only defence is that a suit is pending in the Civil Court filed by Shri Y. L. Krishnamurthy in which a share in the compensation in question has been claimed by the plaintiff. It is however not disputed 3 that there is no injunction issued in the said suit either against the petitioners restraining them from receiving the compensation or forbidding the respondent from releasing the same in their favour.
As a matter of fact the respondent is not even a party to the said suit. The mere pendency of the suit between Y. L. Krishnamurthy and the petitioners, therefore, does not bring the present case within the purview of Section 31(2) so as to justify the non- payment of the amount of compensation determined in favour of the petitioners by the Collector himself in terms of the award made by him. As per Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, an Award made under Section 11 of the Act when filed in the Collector's Office is, final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested, whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not, of the true area and value of the land, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested except to the extent otherwise provided by the said Act. The only provisions which can be called-in-aid for re-opening, the conclusive nature of the Award as to the matters referred to in Section 12 are Sections 18 and 30 of the Act, which envisage a reference to the Civil Court as to the measurement of the land, the amount of 4 compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. For either one of these references any person claiming a right in the compensation determined under an Award is required to make an application to the Collector. No such reference application is said to have been made by any one which could possibly justify the withholding of the payment of compensation determined, under the Award.
3. Smt. Sharmila M. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that as the partition suit is pending amongst the rival claimants, the amounts are not being disbursed to the petitioner.
4. It is open to the respondent to decide as to who is entitled to receive the compensation, if there are no complicated questions of title. On the other hand, if there are complicated questions of title, the respondent has to refer the matter under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) or if the proceedings are pending before the civil court, he may 5 await the outcome of the suit proceedings. The decision relied upon by the petitioner's side has no application for the facts of this case.
5. I am not inclined to give any positive direction, as the rival claimants (two plaintiffs) and the remaining 44 defendants are not arraigned as the respondents to this petition. No direction for the release of the amounts in favour of the petitioner can be made without hearing the other rival claimants. The failure of the plaintiffs to prosecute I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 and the consequent dismissal of I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 would not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to demand that the amounts be released to the petitioner only.
6. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to send the reference invoking Section 30 of the Act, if they are rival claimants and if the complicated questions of law are involved. Alternatively if any suit is pending, it is also open to the respondent to deposit the compensation amounts with the civil court. It is necessary to notice that the respondent herein is the defendant No.46 in the said suit proceedings. The liability to 6 pay the interest continues to run, unless the amounts are disbursed to the claimants or deposited with the concerned forum. Not ceasing the liability to pay the interest is not in the interest of the exchequer.
7. On depositing of the amounts with the proper forum, it is always open to the petitioner to make the necessary application before it for the release of the amounts.
8. This petition is disposed off. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/