Karnataka High Court
The Special Land vs Sri Basavagopalakrishna Rao on 25 June, 2014
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 49568/2013 (LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
KIADB (BMICP), No.3/2, Kini Building,
1st Cross,Gandhinagar,Bangalore-09 ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.D. Boregowda, Advocate)
AND
1.Basavagopalakrishna Rao
S/o.Durga Nageshwara Rao
Rep. by his General Power of Attorney
Holder- V. Anil, Age Major,
Presently residing at No.8/41,
Paduka, 14th Cross, 16th Main,
Padhmanabanagar, Bangalore-560 070
2.V. Nalinakumari
W/o.Basavagopalakrishna Rao
By her General Power of Attorney
Holder- V. Anil, Presently residing at
No.8/41, Paduka, 14th Cross, 16th Main,
Padhmanabanagar,
Bangalore-560 070 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.S. Basavaraj and P. Archana Murthy, Advocates)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order dated 23.7.2013 passed in LAC.No.43/12 in the file
of the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore as per Annexure-J etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing
in "B" Group this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner-KIADB is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.7.2013 passed in LAC.No.43/12.
2. The respondents herein were before the Court below in an application filed under Section 18(3) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking direction to the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer to refer the protest application said to have been filed by the claimants therein for consideration relating to enhancement of the market value. The parties had tendered their evidence. The Court below after consideration has allowed the petition and has directed the Land Acquisition Officer to 3 refer the matter for consideration. The said order is assailed by the petitioner mainly on the contention that the claim petition before the Court below should have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. To the said extent, it is contended that notice of the award had been served on the original owner whose name had been indicated in the Katha. The respondents who are the notified kathedars had not filed any protest application within the period of 90 days permitted under law. It is therefore contended that the Court below was not justified.
3. Insofar as that aspect of the matter, it is seen that the award notice was marked as Ex.P5. The same had been served and the postal cover was marked as Ex.P6. Ex.P7 is the relevant document which is stated to be the application filed under Section 18(1) of the LA Act. The undisputed fact is that the said application was filed on 15.3.2012. The question therefore is as to whether 4 the said application in Ex.P7 was filed within 90 days from the date on which the award notice was served. From the consideration made by the Court below in Para(11) it is clear that the respondents had admittedly indicated that they had knowledge of passing of the award on 16.8.2010 and in any event the award notice had been dispatched earlier to them. The application under Section 18(1) (Ex.P7) is dated 15.3.2012. The Court below has proceeded to take note of the date of filing of application namely 15.3.2012 and thereafter on taking note of the fact that the application under Section 18(3) before the Court was made on 20.4.2012 has arrived at the conclusion that the said application before the Court seeking reference was made within the period of three years and therefore, it has held that the application was within the limitation period.
4. However, what is necessary to be noticed is that the Court below has not addressed the issue as to 5 whether the protest application was filed initially within 90 days from the date of either the award notice being served or the knowledge of the award. When the initial requirement has not been complied by filing the protest application within 90 days, the period of three years from the date of filing of application becomes irrelevant since the entire computation should be period of 90 days for the purpose of filing protest application and three years thereafter for seeking reference. Hence, in the instant case when the application was not filed within 90 days the ultimate conclusion reached by the Court below would not be justified. The judgment dated 23.7.2013 would therefore not be sustainable. The same is accordingly set aside.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-.