AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court seeking that mandamus be issued to the respondent-authorities to pay the enhanced compensation for having acquired 2 acres 5 guntas in Sy. No. 98/2 of Avaregere Village, Davanagere Taluk or the purpose of formation of National Highway No. 4 based on the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator dated 19.01.2007 at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking that the endorsement dated 06.11.2013 be quashed.
The fact that the land to the extent of 2 acres 5 guntas situate in Sy. No. 98/2 of Avaregere village, Davanagere Taluk to which the petitioner claims right was acquired for the formation of National Highway No. 4 is not in dispute. The fact that a sum of Rs. 6,109.37 was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and the husband of the petitioner had received the said amount on 23.11.2007 is also the accepted position. The petitioner seeking enhancement of the compensation had sought for reference u/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was made and registered in LAC No. 21/2008. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 21.10.2011 has dismissed the reference. But however in the operative portion of the order has held that the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator dated 19.01.2007 is confirmed. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator wherein the award dated 19.01.2007 enhancing the compensation was passed.
The petitioner however contends that since the Reference Court has confirmed the order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, notwithstanding the fact that the reference in LAC No. 21/2008 was dismissed, the petitioner should also be paid the similar compensation which had been determined by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator and the respondents cannot contend that in view of the dismissal of the reference, the original compensation decided by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs. 6,109.37 is the only compensation payable to them. The petitioner in fact was before this Court earlier in W.P. No. 35588/2013 which was disposed of on 28.10.2013 whereby the respondents were directed to re-examine the matter and if the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed, the same be paid to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have examined the matter and the endorsement dated 06.11.2013 has been issued indicating that since the LAC No. 21/2008 has been dismissed, no further amount is payable.
In the said circumstance, what is necessary to be considered is as to whether as on today, the petitioner has any right to claim the compensation as determined by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator on 19.01.2007. As noticed, the petitioner or her husband was not a party to the said proceedings. Reference sought by the petitioner u/s 18 was to the Reference Court which was independent of the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator.
Though this Court need not at this juncture advert to the question as to whether such a reference to the Civil Court could have been made, the fact remains that the Reference Court has entertained the proceedings and the judgment has been passed ultimately. A perusal of the reasoning portion of the judgment would indicate that the Reference Court in fact has taken note of the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 19.01.2007 which was marked as Ex. P6 in the proceedings. In a normal circumstance, an award passed in another proceedings would form an useful and reliable piece of evidence for determining the compensation in a subsequent matter. In the instant case, there is no clear finding rendered by the Court below as to whether the said award dated 19.01.2007 marked as Ex. P6 was relied on by the Reference Court to indicate that the compensation awarded therein would be the appropriate compensation that would be payable to the petitioner also though the reference has ultimately been dismissed. In such situation, the mere observation in the order portion that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator dated 19.01.2007 is confirmed would not lead to the conclusion that the similar compensation has been ordered to be paid. Therefore, as on today, the nature of consideration as made by the respondents cannot be faulted and the endorsement issued presently is justified.
Having noticed these aspects of the matter, the respondents cannot be directed to pay the amount as sought for by the petitioner unless necessary orders are passed by the competent Court. Therefore, in such circumstance, as has been noticed, the only course open to the petitioner would be to seek appropriate review/clarification in the proceedings in LAC No. 21/2008 on putting forth these aspects of the matter. If any appropriate orders are passed in such proceedings, the parties would be bound by the same thereafter.
Hence, reserving such liberty to the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.