Chennamma vs The State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners are before this Court assailing the endorsements dated 08.05.2014 at Annexures-F1 to F16. The petitioners are also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the respective applications of the petitioners filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''the Act'' for short) as at Annexures-D1 to D16.

The petitioners herein claim to be agriculturists who had owned lands as per the details indicated in paragraph 1 of the petitions. The said lands were acquired by the respondents for construction of Hemavathi Right Bank Canal. The facts relating to the lands being included in the preliminary notification dated 11.03.1984 and the declaration dated 01.12.1984 as also the award passed determining the compensation in respect of the said lands are not in dispute. The petitioners claiming similar compensation as had been determined by the Reference Court in the judgment and award dated 19.09.2005 in LAC No. 112/1992 and connected cases have filed the applications under Section 28A of the Act. The said applications are claimed to have been made within the time as provided from the date of the judgment and award in LAC No. 112/1992-and connected cases. The said applications were not considered and the petitioners issued reminders. Subsequent thereto, the impugned endorsements dated 08.05.2014 (Annexures-F1 to F16) were issued to the petitioners. In the endorsements, the respondents have indicated that the petitioners had earlier invoked the right available under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, the subsequent applications filed under Section 28A of the Act cannot be considered for grant of compensation as has been determined by the Reference Court in respect of the other land loosers. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this court.

The respondents have filed their statement of objection and the fact that the lands having been acquired from the petitioners is not disputed. However, the contention put forth therein is similar to the endorsements which had been issued to the petitioners. Therefore, the only point for consideration herein is, in the instant facts whether the petitioners have in fact secured a determination from the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act and in that context, whether their request under Section 28A of the Act should be declined. The contention of the petitioners in that regard is that though the petitioners at the first instance had filed a Protest Petition under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made to the Reference Court, the petitioners due to their poverty and backwardness could not prosecute the proceedings before the Reference Court and determination of the proceedings was for non-prosecution and no adjudication of the claim made by the petitioners has been made on merits.

In that light, reference is made to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Hansoli Devi and Others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the right of a land looser to claim under Section 28A of the Act vis-a-vis the initial claim being made under Section 18 of the Act as well. In that regard, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the view that mere reference under Section 18 and non-consideration of such reference either on the ground of delay or on any other technical ground cannot be a bar for the land loosers to subsequently claim a similar compensation as has been determined in respect of other land loosers by invoking the right under Section 28A of the Act. If the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is kept in view and the impugned endorsements are noticed, there is no clear indication from the endorsements as to whether the respondents contend that the reference made earlier under Section 18 of the Act has been adjudicated on merits and the claim made by the land loosers viz., the petitioners herein in that view is rejected by the Reference Court.

Learned Government Advocate at this juncture would submit that in fact some of the reference petitions under Section 18 have been dismissed on merits.

Though such contention is put forth, as noticed, no clear details are available either emanating from the endorsements or from the objection statement. Therefore, this aspect could no doubt be examined by the respondents and an appropriate decision be taken. However, while undertaking such exercise, if it is noticed that no adjudication on merits has been made in respect of the earlier reference made under Section 18 of the Act relating to the petitioners, the consideration of the application filed under Section 28A of the Act would have to be made on its merits and an award is required to be passed keeping in view the determination made by the Reference Court in respect of the similarly placed land loosers in the judgment and award relied upon by the petitioners. In the said exercise, if it is found that any of the reference made in respect of the petitioners is adjudicated on merits, the result of the same could be intimated to the petitioners and such of those applications made under Section 28A of the Act would not merit consideration.

To enable the said exercise, the endorsements dated 08.05.2014 impugned at Annexures-F1 to F16 stand quashed. The matter is remitted to the second respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Reservoir Project to reexamine the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 28A of the Act, keeping in view the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to above, the observations made herein and thereafter pass fresh award as contemplated in law after determining their right in the manner indicated above.

The petitioners shall now furnish one more set of all the papers along with a certified copy of this order to the second respondent. The second respondent shall thereafter undertake the exercise of determination as indicated above in an expeditious manner, but in any event not later than four months from the date on which a copy of this order along with the documents are submitted by the petitioners to the second respondent.

In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.