A lessee whose lease has expired and whose extension suit was dismissed cannot claim to be a 'person interested' in compensation for acquired land under the 2013 Act.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. PANDIT, J.

1. This intra-court appeal by the unsuccessful petitioner filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 27.02.2025 passed in W.P. No.101551/2025, whereunder the petitioner’s prayer to quash the judgment and award passed in L.A.C. No.748/2019 dated 05.12.2024 on the file of the II Additional District Judge and Addition Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Bagalkote, (Annexures-J & J1) and further prayer for a direction to respondent No.3 to receive the compensation amount awarded till disposal of the apportionment proceedings initiated by the petitioner in L.A.C. No.216/2019, are rejected.

2. The parties would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge.

3. The petitioner states that lease in favour of the petitioner by predecessor-in-title of respondent No.3 in respect of the land in question was executed on 01.04.1953 for a period of 30 years. On completion of the lease period of 30 years, the petitioner sought extension of lease for another 30 years and, as respondent No.3 refused to extend the lease, the petitioner is said to have filed O.S. No.5/1984 seeking specific performance. The said suit came to be decreed, and subsequently, a lease deed leasing out the land in question for another 30 years was executed and registered on 30.07.1983. On expiry of the said lease period, the petitioner filed O.S. No.92/2013 on 23.03.2013, against respondent No.3 seeking further extension of lease for another 30 years. The said suit came to be dismissed on 02.11.2022. Against the said dismissal, the petitioner filed R.A. No.27/2022 on 01.12.2022 and the same is pending consideration before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkote.

4. In the meanwhile, a Preliminary Notification under Section 11(1) of the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’) was issued to acquire the land in question. Thereafter, the Final Notification was issued on 09.10.2013. Notice under Section 21(4) of the 2013 Act was issued to the petitioner on 23.11.2017. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no notice was issued to the petitioner – an interested person. The award was passed on 04.07.2018 in respect of 29 guntas in Sy.No.89 of Veerapura Village for Rs.2,81,776/- at the rate of Rs.3,91,220/- per acre. The Company is said to have field a claim petition on 10.07.2017. The Company is also said to have filed a reference under Section 76 and 77 of the 2013 Act for apportionment. Respondent No.3 also filed L.A.C. No.748/2019 seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant is not a party to the said proceeding. It is stated that on 05.12.2024 reference application of respondent No.3 filed under Section 64 (1) and (2) of 2013 Act was allowed and compensation was enhanced to Rs.790/- per sq. ft. to the acquired land. Questioning the said award passed in L.A.C. No.748/2019, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No.101551/2025 contending that the petitioner was a necessary party to the proceedings as he had interest in the land acquired. The learned Single Judge under impugned order dated 27.02.2025 dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner is only a lessee and cannot seek to substitute the owner while claiming compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this appeal.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.B. Naragund for Sri. S.B. Hebballi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned