Kariyappa Gadageppa Amaljari vs Additional Special Land Acquistion Officer

Bopanna, J.—The short point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner - landlord could rely on the provisions of Section 44(2)(b) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (in short, ''the K.L.R. Act'') for claiming the relief sought for in this petition. The relief claimed is that the amounts paid by the Land Acquisition Officer to respondent-4 to 6 as compensation due to them under the Land Acquisition Act is violative of the provisions of Section 44(2)(b) of the K.L.R. Act and therefore, the respondent-4 to 6 should be directed to pay back the amounts to the State Government till the dispute regarding the tenancy rights in the land in question is finally resolved by the Appellate Authority before whom the matter is pending adjudication.

The brief facts in this Writ Petition may be noticed in order to appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. These petitioners, who were petitioners-1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 2785/1981 had challenged the order of the Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights on respondent-4 to 6, who were respondent Nos.1 to 3 in that Writ Petition. This Court quashed the order of the Land Tribunal on the ground that the same was violative of principles of natural justice. After remand, the Land Tribunal held a fresh enquiry and once again conferred occupancy rights on respondents-3 to 6. That order of the Land Tribunal is now pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. In the mean while, during the pendency of these proceedings under the K.L.R. Act, a preliminary notification was made by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act on 3-1-1980, the final notification was made in November 1980 and an award was passed on 28-1-1981.

The petitioners claiming to be the owners of the land represented to the Land Acquisition Officer that the compensation that may be determined by him should not be paid to respondents-3 to 6 since the dispute between the parties regarding occupancy rights claimed by respondents-3 to 6 is still pending consideration before the appropriate authorities under the K.L.R. Act. The Land Acquisition Officer intimated the petitioners that they should get a suitable prohibitory order from the appropriate Court, otherwise, he would disburse the compensation amount to respondent-3 to 6 since they had been declared as tenants of the land in question in the second round of litigation between the parties. The order made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award dated 28-1-1981 reads as under:

"The land in Sy.No. 97 is a tenanted land. The Form No. 7 is still pending before the Land Tribunal, Bagalkot and not yet decided. Hence, the amount should be kept in R.D. till the final decision of the Land Tribunal, Bagalkot."

The Land Tribunal having conferred occupancy rights on respondents-4 to 6 for the second time, the Land Acquisition Officer disbursed the compensation amount on 5-3-1981 in respect of the land to respondents-4 to 6 notwithstanding the objections of the petitioners.

The grievance of the petitioners is that the award itself is bad in law since no award notice as required under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was served on them and that the payment of compensation to respondents-4 to 6 is opposed to the provisions of Section 44(2)(b) of the K.L.R. Act.

The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not borne out by the scrutiny of records. In para-2 of the award, the Land Acquisition Officer observed as follows:

"Public notice u/s 9(1) and (10) of the L.A. Act were issued on 11-12-1980 and got published at all required places in the manner prescribed. Individual notices were also issued on 6-12-80 and got served on all the land holders other interested parties calling upon them to put forth their claim about the lands under Acquisition. The land holders in response to the Notices have filed their claim petitions regarding the quantum of compensation per acre. All the land holders have claimed compensation for their lands Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per acre."

So the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners fails. But, it does not mean that the petitioners have no right to claim enhanced compensation and also apportionment of the compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is opposed to the plain terms of Section 44(2)(b) of the K.L.R. Act.

Mr. Keshava Bhat submitted that the word ''amount'' as it appears in Section 44(2)(b) of the K.L.R. Act includes the compensation due to the landlord under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the Lam Acquisition Officer should have deposited the amount of compensation that was payable under the award in question with the State Government and not paid to the tenants, namely, respondents-4 to 6. Section 44(2)(b) of the K.L.R. Act reads as under :

"(b) Amounts in respect of such lands which become, due on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State Government and not to the land owner, landlord, or any other person and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid."

In my view, the interpretation sought to be put on the word ''amount'' is not borne out by the language of Section 44(2)(b) or of the scheme of the K.L.R. Act. The amounts that become payable under the K.L.R. Act are amounts which are mentioned in certain other provisions of the Act, namely. Section 47 of the K.L.R. Act. Section 47 deals with the amounts due to the landlord and other persons interested in the land for the extinguishment of their rights in the lands vested in the State Government under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 or Section 20 or Section 44. Section 15 deals with resumption of land by solider or seaman and the provisions of Section 45 of the K.L.R. Act mutatis mutandis applies to the case of resumption under that Section. Section 20 of the K.L.R. Act deals with resumption of the land on the failure of the landlord to cultivate the same by evicting the tenant or by using it for non-agricultural purposes within one year from the date he takes possession or ceases to take possession within three years from the date on which he took possession of land by evicting the tenant, Section 44. as already noticed earlier, deals with amounts in respect of land vesting in the State Government as on 1-3-1974 and all arrears of land revenue, cesses, water rate or other dues remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of such lands. Section 48B empowers the Tahsildar to determine the amount payable after conferment of occupancy rights on the tenant u/s 48A. These provisions go to show that the word amount used in Section 44(2)(b) is relatable to amounts, which become due either u/s 44 or under other provisions of the K.L.R. Act and that it does not include the compensation due to the persons under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the L.A.O. in the absence of any interim order by any superior Court directing him not to pay the amounts of compensation to respondents-3 to 6 did not commit any illegality. However, now that the matter is pending consideration by the Appellate Authority on the question whether the respondents-4 to 6 are the tenants of the land in question, the right of the petitioners to the amount in question should be safeguarded.

It is open to the petitioners to move the Appellate Authority for safeguarding their interests by insisting on some security to be furnished by respondents-4 to 6 till the disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority.

With these observations, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

However, the right of the petitioners for enhancement of compensation and also for apportionment of the compensation shall be worked out by having recourse to Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, if it is otherwise permissible in law.