AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioners have called into question the gazette notification, dated 22.3.2012 (Annexure-F) publishing the first respondent''s proceedings drawn on 14.3.2012. The first respondent has held that the amounts paid in excess of the petitioners'' entitlement has to be recovered from them with interest. It states that some persons have received the compensation for the Government land, which they have encroached. Sri P. Mahesha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned notification is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners are not put on notice. He submits that the impugned notification is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. He submits that once the first respondent passes the order, he becomes functus officio. He cannot change his award. He submits that the petitioners did not accept the award of the first respondent. They indeed sought the reference and in the reference proceedings (L.A.C.s), the market value is enhanced. Against the awards passed by the Reference Court, the respondents have filed Miscellaneous Appeals (L.A.C.) before the District Court, Mandya.
The learned counsel submits that the first respondent claims to have drawn the impugned proceedings pursuant to the Division Bench''s judgment, dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure-E) passed in W.A. No. 5508/2011 and W.A. Nos. 15662-673/2011. He submits that the said order has nothing to do with the first phase acquisition for Bangalore-Mysore four lanes State Highway nor were the petitioners parties to the said appeal proceedings.
Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 submits that these petitions are premature. It is open to the petitioners to file objections to the said notification in support of their contentions that they have not received any amounts in excess of their entitlement. He further submits that the impugned notification is a general order and that if the proceedings for recovering the amounts are to be initiated, as if they are the land revenue arrears, the individual notices would be given to the petitioners.
He submits that in the course of making the survey for measuring the lands in second phase acquisition, the discrepancies regarding the first phase acquisition are noticed. He submits that those who have taken the compensation for the Government lands are obliged to return the amounts.
The submissions of the learned advocates have received my thoughtful consideration. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that if a party has unlawfully enriched himself by taking the compensation for the land not owned by him but owned by the Government, he is bound to refund the amounts thereof. But the question is whether a party has received the compensation for the loss of lands owned by him and/or by the lands owned by the Government. This exercise involves factual determination. Only on giving an opportunity to the concerned party to produce the documents in support of his owning a definite extent of the acquired land and further hearing him thereon, the issue of whether the excess payment is made or not has to be adjudicated. If it is adjudicated that a party has received the excess payment, then the necessary proceedings for the recovery of the amounts has got to be initiated. In the instant case, the impugned notification is issued without observing the principles of natural justice. Only on that short ground, I allow these petitions by holding that the respondents shall not operationalise the impugned notification insofar as it pertains to the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 shall issue the individual notices to the petitioners within four weeks from today. On considering the petitioners'' reply and the documents and on hearing the petitioners, the respondent No. 1 shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. No order as to costs.