A consent agreement in land acquisition effectively precludes subsequent claims for additional compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, confirming the binding nature of mutually agreed terms between parties.

ORDER :

V.SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri. P.N., Rajeshwara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Claimant in LAC No.34/2016 is the revision petitioner challenging the Order passed by the Reference Court dated 04.01.2022 whereby the reference application under Section 18 (3)(b) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 read with Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be dismissed. Operative portion of the order reads as under:

"The petition filed by the claimant/petitioner under Section 18(3)(b) of L.A. Act, 1894 r/w Section 24 of CPC is dismissed."

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

3.1 Respondent/KIADB acquired land belonging to the petitioner by issuing necessary notification for the purpose of construction of metro rail project. After the notification came to be issued, claimant and acquiring authority sat together for the determination of the adequate and just compensation and arrived at a settlement and consent agreement was drafted (Ex.P8). In the said consent agreement, it has been agreed as under:

3.2 The details of the acquired land is furnished in the tabular column as under, which is part of Exhibit P8:

3.3 After executing Ex.P8, petitioner turned around as to the adequacy of the compensation and filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.25193 & 25194/2015.

3.4 A coordinate bench of this Court passed an order on 13.08.2015 which is marked as Ex. P17 in the Court below. Said order is culled out hereunder for ready reference:

"As regards the claim that petitioner is entitled to more than ₹3,12,40,688/ by way of interest in terms of the agreement dated 11.11.2011, Annexure-G, under sub Section (2) of Section 29 of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966, it is open for the petitioner to institute a suit for declaration of his right under the said contract and secure payment of the same and not come rushing to this Court in exercise of supervisory writ jurisdiction. Alternatively, petitioner may make a representation enclosing all necessary particulars and documents over alleged error of calculation as also a copy of this order, which if so done within a fortnight from today, there is no reason to believe that the authorities would not consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. Petitions are disposed of accordingly."

3.5 Thereafter, petitioner filed a representation before the respondent. The respondent has passed a modified award vide Ex.P16. Relevant portion of Ex.P16 reads as under:

3.6 Being not satisfied with the determination of the said amount, by Order dated 16.07.2015 vide Ex.P16, reference application under Section 18(3)(b) came to be filed before the Land Acquisition Officer on 27.08.2015 vide Ex.P1.

3.7 There was no action taken by the respondent and therefore the claimant filed an application under 18(3)(b) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT on 03.03.2016.

3.8 Respondent appeared before the Court and filed necessary objections. An enquiry was held by the learned Trial Judge and after holding the enquiry, learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the claimant, inter alia holding in paragraph numbers 16 to 24 as under:

"16. PW.1 has stated that he gave representation on 25.05.2015 that the compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the New Enactment. Ex.P.15 is the sai