AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—These four revision petitions arise out of the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the learned II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in separate proceedings instituted by the revision petitioners under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act'') seeking a direction to the respondent - Land Acquisition Officer to make reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the market value and the compensation payable to them in respect of the acquired lands which were the subject matter therein.
As common questions arise for consideration in these matters, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
Lands belonging to one N. Ramaswamy - father of petitioners in these four revision petitions came to be acquired for the benefit of the BDA. Long back awards was passed. As there was dispute regarding the payment of compensation to the land owners, a reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act in LAC No. 223/1999. Indeed, the original land owner - Ramaiah died on 27.04.2001. As there was dispute among his legal representatives regarding the apportionment of the compensation, the matter was referred. In the said case, all the revision petitioners appeared and the amount of compensation payable was apportioned according to their entitlement. The said case came to be finally disposed of on 17.10.2008.
The contention of the revision petitioners before the Court below was that as notice of the award had not been issued to them and as they had no knowledge of the contents of the award, soon after coming to know about the same, they had filed application on 03.05.2007 under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the correct market value payable to the acquired lands. Their grievance was that though the application was filed in time after coming to know of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer did not make reference to the Civil Court and therefore, they were constrained to institute proceedings under Section 18(3)(b) seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter.
This petition was strongly resisted by the BDA which is the beneficiary of the acquisition. It was specifically contended by them that no such application was filed by the land owners within the time prescribed under the Act. Parties led their evidence.
The revision petitioners produced and marked Ex. P.1 -acknowledgement issued by the office of the Land Acquisition Officer and Ex. P.2 - copy of the application filed under Section 18 of the Act before the Commissioner, BDA, Bangalore. The respondent - BDA examined R.W. 1, one Dasappa.
On consideration of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, the Court below has come to the conclusion that there was no material placed to show that application under Section 18(1) of the Act was filed before the Land Acquisition Officer and that the assertions made by the petitioners contending that they learnt about passing of the award only in the year 2007 was palpably false inasmuch as they had participated in the proceedings arising out of the reference made under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act before the Civil Court and had full knowledge of the award passed. Thus, the Court below has dismissed the petitions filed under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that service of award notice as per Section 12(2) of the Act was mandatory and it was the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to establish such service by producing necessary documents; in the absence of the same, the Court below was not right and justified in rejecting the applications. It is his further submission that father of the revision petitioners - Ramaswamy had died on 27.04.2001. Therefore, petitioners had no occasion to know about the passing of the award, let alone the contents thereof and hence, the assertions made by them to the effect that soon after they learnt about passing of the award and the contents thereof, they presented the application under Section 18(1) of the Act ought to have been accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondent strongly supports the findings recorded by the Court below.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties and on consideration of the materials on record, I find that the Court below has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that Ex. P2 does not disclose that signature of the concerned authorities for having received the same and Ex. P1 - acknowledgment has no relationship with Ex. P2 to show that an application under Section 18(1) of the Act had been presented before the Land Acquisition Officer. In addition, the Court below has rightly taken into consideration the important aspect that though the award had been passed somewhere during 1999 up till 2007, revision petitioners did not take any steps to file reference petition under Section under Section 18(1) of the Act.
Mere fact that father of the revision petitioners passed away on 27.04.2001 and hence, they had no knowledge of passing of the award and the proceedings initiated cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that notice of the award had not been served on their father and that the petitioners had no notice of knowledge of the award. Indeed, as rightly found by the court below, in the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 & 31 of the Act in LAC No. 223/1999, revision petitioners appeared before the Civil Court and participated in the proceedings. Therefore, they had all the knowledge of passing of the award and the deposit of the award amount before the Civil Court on account of the dispute inter se between the legal heirs of Ramaswamy to share the compensation amount. Therefore, the Court below has rightly come to the conclusion that revision petitioners did not come up with the truth and had indeed suppressed the factum of knowledge of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and had wrongly asserted that they came to know about the award passed only in the year 2007. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the Court below.
The Court below has rightly held that in the absence of valid application filed under Section 18(1) of the Act and in the absence of proof of fact that the application had been filed within the time as provided under Section 18(1) of the Act, no direction in terms of Section 18(3)(b) of the Act could be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter.
Hence, these revision petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind all important fact that petitioners have lost their lands, imposition of costs of Rs. 3,000/- by the Court below on each of the revision petitioners is vacated.