Back
2007 Supreme(Kar) 412
Karnataka High Court
Judges : RAM MOHAN REDDY
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - Appellant
Versus
SRIKANT PUNDALIK Banakar - Respondent
C. R. P. 23 Of 2007
Decided On : 07/12/2007
Advocates Appeared :
Akkamahadevi
Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18 - Failure to seek reference under - Application under Section 28A for redetermination of compensation - LAO is duty bound to consider representations of persons interested - Civil Court cannot assume jurisdiction and consider petitions filed against non-consideration of representations by LAO.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28A - Re-determination of compensation - Non-consideration of representation of persons interested - Invocation of civil courts jurisdiction - Enhancement of compensation - Held, Civil Court has no jurisdiction - Non-consideration of representation by LAO deprecated. [Ram Mohan Reddy, J.]: Section 28-A of the Act was inserted by Act 68/1984 for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award entitling persons interested in all other lands covered by the same notification under section 4(1) and who though aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation, provided written applications are filed with the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Civil Court requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Civil Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A enjoins upon the Collector to conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all "persons interested" and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. Sub-section (3) enables the applicants who do not accept the award passed under sub-section (2) of Section 28-A, by the Collector, to require the matter be referred by the Collector for determination by the Civil Court and in respect of which the provisions of Section 18 to 28 are made applicable to such a reference. The conduct of the State and its officers, one cannot but notice, the lethargy, inaction, and rank indiscipline by the officers in the discharge of duties under the Act. The failure to address the respondents applications under section 28-A by the Special Land Acquisition Officer despite passage of four years from the date of filing speaks volumes of the nature of business transacted by the officer in charge of the said post and the entire hierarchy of the executive, bordering on lack of accountability and responsibility. In my opinion, the Special Land Acquisition Officer failed to discharge duties entrusted resulting in the respondents-persons interested, driven to exasperation, from being kept away from adequate compensation for lands acquired by the State, on account of submergence due to Upper Krishna Project, filed petitions before the civil court. The duties, functions and responsibilities attached to the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, are deliberately flouted. I say deliberate because, despite receiving the applications, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declined to exercise a jurisdiction vested, in him, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings. Even during the proceedings before the Civil Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer having contested the petitions contending that it was he who is required to consider the applications for re-determining the compensation under section 28- A of the Act, nevertheless, failed to do so.
( 1 ) COMMON questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making in these petitions, with the consent of the learned AGA for the petitioner, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.
( 2 ) RESPONDENTS thought served with notice of the petitions, have remained absent and are unrepresented.
( 3 ) FACTS not in dispute are: the state in exercise of eminent domain power, acquired immovable properties being house sites with buildings belonging to the respondents, amongst others, to wit for Upper Krishna Project, by issuing notifications under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'act'. One of the persons interested, aggrieved by the determination of the market value in the award of the Land Acquisition officer had its representation referred to the Civil Court for higher compensation which when numbered as LAC No. 999/1999 was clubbed with four other reference applications of other interested persons, and the Civil Court, by judgment and award dated 8-6-2004 determined the market value and enhanced the compensation by 50%. Respondents herein, though did not seek reference of their disputes for enhancement of compensation, to the Civil Court, nevertheless filed representations dated 19. 7. 2004 and 8-9-2004 acknowledged by the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of the compensation, under section 28aof the Act, indisputably, within the period of limitation, which when not responded to, by an enquiry and notices to all persons interested as required by sub-Section (2) of section 28-A, impelled the respondents to file petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the civil court, under sub-Section (3) of Section 18 read with Section 28-A of the Act, for reference to the Civil Court of their representations for re-determination of the compensation. In the said proceeding, the Land Acquisition Officer entered appearance and filed Statement of objections interalia contending that the petitions were not maintainable as Section 28a invested a jurisdiction in the land Acquisition Officer to consider, hold an enquiry, extend opportunity to the persons interested and pass orders on the claims for re-determination of compensation. Despite such a contention being advanced, strangely during the entire proceedings, the Land Acquisition officer did not exercise a jurisdiction vested in him. The Civil Court, by the orders impugned directed the Land Acquisition Officer to forward the applications filed under section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the judgment and award in LAC No. 999/1999. Hence, these Revision petitions.
( 4 ) SMT Akkamahadevi, Learned AGAis correct in her submission that the petitions filed under section 18 (3) and section 28-A of the act, before the Civil Court for transfer of the respondents' application under section 28-A pending before the Special Land Acquisition officer, by way of a reference, for re-determination of the compensation by the Civil Court is incompetent and the orders impugned being without jurisdiction are non-est.
( 5 ) SECTION 28-A of the Act was inserted by Act 68/1984 for redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award entitling persons interested in all other lands covered by the same notification under section 4 (1) and who though aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, had not made an application to the collector under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation, provided written applications are filed with the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Civil Court requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Civil Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A enjoins upon the Collector to conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all "persons interested" and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determinng
