AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Petitioners have assailed endorsement dated 19-5-2014/21-5-2014 issued by the fourth respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Chickmagaluru District, Chickmagaluru. The grievance of the petitioners is that their applications filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 25(1)(d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 before the Assistant Commissioner-fourth respondent herein have not been considered.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that the applications at Annexures-N to R are filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court to seek enhancement of compensation by order dated 11-1-2013, passed in W.P. Nos. 778 to 782 of 2013.
I have heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate, who appears for respondents on advance notice and perused the material on record.
This Court by order dated 11-1-2013 reserved liberty to the petitioners to seek enhancement of compensation by making an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 25(1)(d) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. That liberty is to seek enhancement of compensation by making a reference to the Civil Court, but petitioners have filed their applications before the fourth respondent. Those applications are not maintainable. Hence, the fourth respondent was right in issuing the impugned endorsement. There is no merit in the writ petitions and therefore, writ petitions would have to be dismissed.
At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that in terms of the order dated 11-1-2013 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, petitioners would approach the concerned Reference Court and seek enhancement of compensation.
In the circumstances, petitioners are at liberty to approach the Reference Court under sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act (Karnataka Amendment) and seek a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference. If such applications are made before the Civil Court, then the latter may consider the same in accordance with law for the purpose of directing the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within such time as the Court may fix.
Petitioners are thus at liberty to seek enhancement before the concerned Reference Court, in terms of the order dated 11-1-2013, if they are so advised. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, writ petitions stand dismissed.