The beneficiary of land acquisition is entitled to be heard before enhancing compensation, and the availability of an appeal remedy does not preclude invoking the writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is directed against the impugned judgment and award dtd. 16/9/2013 passed in LAC No.73/2010 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru, whereby the said reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the LA Act, 1894) filed at the instance of respondent Nos.2 to 6 / claimants was partly allowed thereby awarding enhanced compensation in favour of the said claimants.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the subject lands were acquired for the benefit of the petitioner / Madhuvana House Building Co-operative Society, pursuant to a reference under Sec. 18 of the LA Act, 1894, wherein the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore SubDivision, Mysore was arrayed as respondent No.1 and the petitioner / Society was arrayed as respondent No.2. By the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court proceeded to allow the same in part by fixing compensation at Rs.5,80,201.00 per acre together with all consequential benefits. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite it being made a party to the reference proceedings as respondent No.2, the petitioner was not served with notice of the proceedings and was not aware of the same and did not contest the proceedings. The reference Court proceeded to pass the impunged ex-parte judgment and award against the petitioner without providing sufficient or reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend and contest the proceedings and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following decisions:

(i) U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi (Dead) by Lrs. And others " " (1995) 2 SCC 326;

(ii) Bhimashankar Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer and Asst. Commissioner and others " " ILR 2004 KAR 4878;

(iii) K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others " " (2008) 12 SCC 481;

(iv) Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Chandrasekaragowda " " ILR 1985 KAR 3044

(v) The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore Vs. Sri.Byregowda and another " " 2019(1) KCCR 570.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / claimants submits that the petitioner was served with the notice of the proceedings and contested the same and consequently, the impugned judgment does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

5. The question with regard to the beneficiaries of acquisition proceedings being notified and being heard before passing an award under Sec. 18 of the LA Act, 1894 is no longer res integra in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court including the recent judgment in the case of The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, Bangalore Vs. Sri. Byregowda and Another " " 2019 (1) KCCR 570, wherein it is held as under:

"In these writ petitions, the grievance of the writ petitioners who happen to be the beneficiaries of land acquisition in question is against the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court made under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereafter "Act" for short) whereby the amount of compensation ultimately payable by the said beneficiaries has been enhanced without affording any opportunity of hearing to them.

2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel, who resist these petitions on the ground that the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of statutory appeal and therefore, they should be relegated to the same. In support of their submissions although they banked upon certain decisions, which directly have not considered the questions that arise from these cases, as stated in the paragraph infra.

3. The following two questions arise for consideration of this Court in these matters:

i) whether the beneficiaries of the acquisition of lan