Muniyappa, Thamanna and Venkataramanappa, Deceased by his LRs. (Munirathna and Others) vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore

A.N. Venugopala Gowda

An application filed by the petitioners under S. 18(3)(b)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), to direct the respondent to make reference under S.18 of the Act with regard to the acquisition of land measuring 1 acre 8 guntas in Sy. No.77 of Avalahalli Village in Uttarahalli Hobli of Bangalore South Taluk, in LAC No.294/91-92 having been dismissed by the Civil Court, as being not within the period of limitation, this writ petition has been filed. Land bearing Sy. Nos.77 and 78 of Avalahalli Village in Uttarahalli Hobli of Bangalore South Taluk was acquired for the implementation of the scheme -J.P. Nagar IX Stage Layout by the Bangalore Development Authority. Notification under S. 17(1) of the BDA Act, 1976 was issued on 17.11.1988, which was gazetted on 12.01.1989. Government issued final declaration under S.19(1) of the BDA Act on 22.07.1991, which was gazetted on 26.07.1991, An award was passed on 17.05.1999.

The petitioners along with others, filed W.P. Nos. 14252-264/2000, to quash the said Notifications, the Award dated 17.05.1999 and an endorsement of the BDA dated 29.03.2000. Alternatively they sought for a direction to permit them to form layout of sites in the said survey numbers, as per Government Order dated 17.11.1995. The same were dismissed on 27.06.2001, by holding that there was inordinate delay and laches in filing the writ petitions and that S.11-A of the Act is not applicable and that the land having been vested in the BOA, the petitioners are not entitled to the alternate relief. The said order has become final.

Petitioners filed an application in the Civil Court on 18.07.2005, to direct the respondent to make a reference under S.18 of the Act. Statement of objections was filed by the respondent on 14.09.2006. Considering the evidence placed on record, noticing the order dated 27.06.2001 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 14252-264/2000, disbelieving the version of the petitioners that they had no knowledge of the passing of the Award by the respondent prior to 14.07.2003, the impugned order was passed, by placing reliance on the decision in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Laxuman reported at AIR 2005 SCW 5535.

Sri P. Krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order being opposed to the record of the case, the reasoning of the learned Civil Judge being illegal, interference in the matter is called for. Learned counsel submitted that the knowledge of the passing of the award can only be with reference to the date of receipt of notices of the award having been passed and not otherwise. Learned counsel submitted that the decision reported at AIR 2005 SCW 5535 has no application to the case. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, ; State of Punjab Vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Another, ; and an order dated 24.08.2011 passed in W.P. 35258/2009 and connected petitions.

I have perused the record. The point for consideration is, whether the Court below is justified in holding that the application filed before it was beyond the period of limitation?

Indisputedly, the petitioners along with others filed W.P.Nos.14252-264/2000, on 11.04.2000. They sought quashing of the Notifications issued under Ss.17 and 19 of the BDA Act in respect of the land in question. They also sought quashing of the Award dated 17.05.1999 passed in LAC Nos.294 and 295 of 1991-1992, Hence, the petitioners had the knowledge of the award passed in respect of the land in question, at least as on 11.04.2000, the date on which W.P.Nos. 14252-264/2000 were filed. The said Award was challenged on the ground that it was not made within two years out made after eight years after the issuance and publication of the final declaration and award being in violation of S.11-A of the Act, the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The said contention was negatived by placing reliance on the decisions reported at Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, and The Bangalore Development Authority Vs. C.B.C.I. Society for Medical Education, .

The petitioners having challenged the said Award in the said writ petitions, they had the knowledge of the passing of the Award by the respondent, at least on 11.04.2000, if not earlier. The application under S.18(3)(b) of the Act was filed before the Civil Court on 18.07.2005.

In the case of LAXUMAN (supra), it has been held that the claimant has to make an application for reference within 90 days of the service of notice under S.12(2) of the Act and that S.18 casts a duty on the concerned officer to make a reference within 90 days of the receipt of the application for reference. In case, the Deputy Commissioner fails to perform the mandate of the statute, the provision gives the claimant a right to approach the Court, which can compel the reference to be made by the Deputy Commissioner who had failed to perform the duty under S.18(3)(a) of the Act. It has been held therein that, on expiry of 90 days from the date the application for reference made within the time under S.18(1) of the Act, the remedy of the claimant to have a reference gets extinguished on the expiry of three years and 90 days'' period.

The decisions on which reliance was placed by Sri P. Krishnappa have no application, since the petitioners had the actual knowledge of the passing of the award, on 11.04.2000, when the writ petitions were filed questioning the said award on the ground that it is beyond the period prescribed under S.11-A of the Act. The application having been filed before the Court below on 18.07.2005 being beyond three years and 90 days'' period, the Court below is justified in following the ratio of law in the decision in the case of LAXUMAN (supra) and in holding that the application filed is beyond the period of limitation.

In the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. S.U.T.N.I Sangam and Others, , it has been held that constructive knowledge of the contents of the award would also subserve the purpose of the Act. Whether a person had the actual or constructive knowledge of the contents of a document is essentially a question of fact and the onus would be on the land holder to show that he did not have any knowledge of the contents of the award. In the instant case, the petitioners had the actual knowledge of the award as on 11.04.2000. The petitioners have failed to discharge the burden that they did not have knowledge of the contents of the award earlier to 18.7.2005. The very award having been questioned in the said writ petitions, the petitioners cannot contend that they had no knowledge of the contents of the award. In the decision in the case of SAIL (supra), the two decisions on which Sri P. Krishnappa placed reliance has been taken note of and it has been held that constructive knowledge would also subserve the purpose of the Act. The petitioners having obtained the award copy and having challenged the same in the said writ petitions, had the knowledge of the contents of the award as on 11.4.2000. The writ petitions having been filed beyond three years and ninety days'' period commencing from 11.04.2000, was clearly beyond the period of limitation. In the circumstances, the learned Civil Judge is justified in passing the impugned Award. The reasoning of the learned Civil Judge is neither irrational nor illegal for being interfered with.

In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit, shall stand rejected.

Ordered accordingly.