AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivaprakash, J
Sri T.N. Arakeshwara, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lands of the petitioners were acquired for the purpose of construction of Theetha Reservoir and a certain amount was awarded by way of compensation.
It appears, subsequently, other lands belonging to third parties were also acquired for the same purpose and not satisfied with the award, the owners of the said lands sought reference to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Civil Court by its award dated 24.7.1989 in LAC No. 22/82 modified the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced the compensation. As against the said award of the Reference Court it appears, Appeal was preferred to this Court in M.F.A.Nos. 95 and 96/90. The said Appeals were dismissed by this Court on 20th November, 1991.
The Question that arises for Consideration is whether the date of the award of the Reference Court is relevant or whether the date of the dismissal of the Appeals by this Court is relevant for purposes of computing the time of 90 days prescribed for making the application u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that since Appeals were preferred against the award passed by the Reference Court, the award made by the Reference Court had not become final, and that as a matter of fact in the said Appeals there was stay of the award passed by the Reference Court and therefore, the petitioners could not have relied on the award passed by the Reference Court for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to them on the basis of the said award of the Reference Court. The learned Counsel submitted that the relevant date is the date when the Appeals were dismissed by this Court on 20.11.1991 and the award of the Reference Court became operative and final.
This submission of the learned Counsel has to be accepted since the award of the Reference Court had not become final as long as the Appeals before this Court were pending. Therefore, the relevant date would be the date when the Appeals were disposed off by this Court. If this date were to be taken as the date for reckoning the period prescribed u/s 28A, the applications made by the petitioners are within time.
Hence, these Petitions succeed and a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioners and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Petitions disposed off at the Preliminary Hearing stage after directing the learned HCGP to take notice on behalf of the respondents.