Ningamma Deceased By L.Rs. Chikkathayamma and Kumara vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer Nagamangala

Jawad Rahim

Claimants'' revision against rejection of their application for reference u/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity).

Heard.

It is not in dispute that petitioners are legal heirs of Ningamma (petitioner in LAC.121/07) before the trial court. During her lifetime, she had filed an application u/s 18(1) of the Act for a direction to the respondent-LAO to submit reference in respect of acquisition of her land in Survey No. 448 measuring 0.30 guntas of Chokanahalli village, Keregodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. The claim was resisted initially, but later it is noticed LAO had, on his own volition, submitted the reference in respect of lands acquired under the same notification through his reference dated 30.5.2007. Undoubtedly reference was not only in respect of one land but several lands which includes land of the petitioner-Ningamma. It was undoubtedly on the basis of her application dated 3.3.2004 requesting him to make reference.

The learned trial judge being of the view that the reference submitted by the LAC being beyond the period prescribed to enable the disappointed applicant to apply, rejected the request of the applicant without entertaining the reference mode by the LAO on 30.5.2007. Thus, rejection was purely on the basis of limitation.

This issue had come up for consideration in the connected matter, C.R.P.26/11 relating to similarly placed applicant where, by a considered order, the trial court order was set aside with the following observations:

In the instant case, it is seen, sand owner had filed the case in the year 2007. Notice of award was served on him on 28.2.2004. He has applied to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 29.3.2004. Therefore, he had to wait for 90 days which would expire on 28.6.2004. From that date, he had three years to apply to the court for direction which would some day end on 28.6.2007. It papers, the land owner did not file any petition u/s 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer had filed reference before the court on 30.5.2007 which was acknowledged by the court on 26.11.2007. The learned trial judge has entertained a doubt about the date of receipt and has left it unsettled. But the fact remains that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had sent a reference on 30.5.2007 which was acknowledged by an endorsement of the court on 1.6.2007. The date referred to as 26.11.2007 is therefore an incorrect observation of fact. On that basis, the learned trial judge has held, since the reference by the Deputy Commissioner was beyond three years, it was not acceptable, being barred by time and consequently rejected the reference. The reasoning assigned by the learned trial judge is firstly based on incorrect facts and secondly the opinion of the learned trial judge that the period stipulated is three years and it is only the land owner who can apply for direction and the Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot, on his own, make reference, is erroneous. The decision of the Hon''ble apex court is an answer to all these questions. Applying the judgment of the Hon''ble apex court, I am satisfied that the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. The reference of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed to be examined by the reference court after giving opportunity to both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of.

The same view applies to the case in question. Since a decision has been taken in the said case based on the decision of the apex court in the case of Assistant Commissioner vs. Lakshmi Bai AIR 1988 KAR 11, no different view could be taken.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 26.7.2011 passed in C.R.P.26/11. The impugned order is sec aside. Reference of the LAO is directed to be examined by the reference court giving opportunity to both parties and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.