Guru Sankannarayasrama Trust (Regd.) vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & Others

R. Nataraj, J

This writ petition is filed by the claimants in LAC.No.75/1999 pending consideration before the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Reference Court' for short) challenging an order dated 13.07.2022 passed therein, by which, the Reference Court rejected an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short).

The petitioner was the owner of a property bearing Municipal No.59, 3rd Block, Thyagaraja Nagara, Bengaluru, which was acquired in terms of a preliminary notification dated 08.04.1993 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1894' for short). The compensation was determined, which was challenged by the petitioner and the same was referred under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 in LAC No.75/1999. The petitioner filed this claim petition and thereafter, the case was set down for trial. When the proceedings was listed for addressing the arguments, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to claim the enhanced compensation by factoring 15% increase in the land price as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in 2010 AIR SCW 5655. The Reference Court in terms of the order dated 13.07.2022 rejected the application on the following grounds:

"i) That the application was filed at the stage when the case was listed for arguments.

ii) The petitioner sought increase in the market value by factoring 15% increase from 1993-2022. It held that since the market value of the land as on the date of the acquisition would be considered, the question of factoring increase in the market value of the land at 15% does not arise.

iii) That the petitioner had earlier filed an application in the year 2016 for amendment of the claim petition, which was allowed and the petitioner did not raise the contention regarding increase in the market value."

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the increase in the market value of the property is one of the factors to be considered while determining the compensation. He contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has considered such increase at the rate of 15% if the properties lies within an urban area and therefore, he submits that this fact was necessary to be brought on record by way of an amendment. He further submits that since the claimant is before the Court claiming enhancement of the compensation, the Reference Court is bound to be liberal while considering applications for amendment.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Reference Court has given substantial opportunities to the claimants and that the claimant had utilized the same. He submitted that the application filed for amendment of the claim is not bonafide, since the value of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification would be considered for the purpose of determining compensation and not the increase in the value of the property. He submitted that the Reference Court therefore rightly considered the position of law and rejected the application. He also submitted that the respondent would be put to burden of interest if the application is allowed and if the matter is delayed.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

It is not doubt true that the conduct of the petitioner is not above board but smacks of sheer negligence in claiming the relief at the earliest point in time. If the claimant has woken from deep slumber and has realized that the some essential fact that had to be pleaded in the claim application was not pleaded and if such realization has dawned upon the plaintiff late, when the case was listed for arguments, the claimant cannot claim that the Reference Court was not liberal. A perusal of the order passed by the Reference Court indicates that adequate opportunity was granted to the claimant and even after the grant of sufficient opportunity, the claimant did not put forth his entire claim.

In that view of the matter, though the order passed by the reference Court is unexceptionable, but having regard to the fact that the claimant had lost its property and intends to seek enhanced compensation, it is appropriate that the claimant is given a final opportunity to advance all its claims. This shall however be subject to the condition that the claimant shall pay cost of a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only). The claimant shall not lead any oral evidence after amending the claim petition.

In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Reference Court is set aside. The application filed by the claimant under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) payable to Karuna Animal Shelter, Karntaka Veterinary College Campus, Hebbal, Bengaluru, within a period of one week. It is made clear that the claimant shall not lead any oral or documentary evidence in respect of the assertions made in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a similar application is filed by the claimants before the Reference Court and the Reference Court has posted the case for orders. If a similar application is filed to protract the proceedings before the Reference Court, the Reference Court shall dispose off the applications in accordance with law and the impose such conditions and costs as may be felt reasonable by the reference Court.