AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil
Though this petition is posted for orders on the Misc. Ws., the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, and after allowing both the Misc. Ws, as follows. Misc. W. 10561/2010 and Misc. W. 10562/2010 are respectively filed by the learned counsel for petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the recalling application and to recall the order dated 6th June 2008, in the interest of justice and equity.
After going through the affidavits accompanying both the applications, the delay has been satisfactorily explained and the same is accepted and the reasons for recalling the order are also explained satisfactorily and hence they are accepted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the affidavits accompanying the applications, both the Misc. Ws. are allowed. Delay in filing the recalling application is condoned. Order dated 6th June 2008 is recalled and the matter is taken up for consideration, on merits.
Petitioner in this petition has sought for quashing the award dated 27th October 1992 passed u/s 11 of Act bearing No. REV/LAQ/SPL/ 5/90-91 vide Annexure-E, insofar as petitioner''s land is concerned and to quash the notice dated 23rd December 1992, issued u/s 12(2) of the Act bearing No. REV/LAW/5/90-91, vide Annexure-F and consequently to set aside the entire proceedings in LAC No. 148/197, pending on the file of the III Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Gulbarga.
The only grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that petitioner claims that he is the owner of Survey No. 173/2, measuring 15 acres, 09 guntas situate at Srinivas Saradgi -village and Taluk, District Gulbarga. Be that as it may, the second respondent initiated the acquisition proceedings, for acquisition of (he land in question along with other lands for formation of Kajikotanur water Tank vide preliminary Notification dated 9th September 1990, issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 8th November, 1990 followed by final declaration dated 20th December 1991 published in the Karnataka Gazettee dated 23rd January 1992. The lands in question, viz. Sy. No. 173/1 and 173/2 are notified at SI. Nos. 5 and 8 in the preliminary Notification and SI. No. 4 in the final declaration vide Annexures C and D respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer, after issuing statutory notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has passed the award dated 27th October 1992 vide Annexure E and issued the award notice dated 23rd December 1992, u/s 12 (2) of the Act, vide Annexure F. While issuing the said award notice, the said authority has mentioned the name of the notified Khatedar in respect of Sy. Nos. 173/1 and 173/2 as Basamma, W/o. Gurappa, (Chandrashekar, S/o. Basavantayya) and Shivayogayya S/o. Veeriah, who is none other than the father of the petitioner.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that, at the time of issuing award notice u/s 12 (2) of the Act, deliberately and intentionally, the authority has included the name of Basamma, W/o. Gurappa, in respect of Sy. No. 173/1. Therefore, petitioner is constrained to redress his grievance seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra, on the ground that inclusion of the said Sy. No. 173/1 is not sustainable and it is liable to vitiate and consequently the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of the Act also cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside as also the entire proceedings pending adjudication in LAC No. 148/1997, on the file of the III Addl. City Civil Judge Junior Division, Gulbarga.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
After careful perusal of the entire material available on record, it emerges that as per the final declaration issued u/s 6 (1) of the Act, dated 20th December 1991, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 23rd January 1992 vide Annexure D, at Sl. No. 4, in respect of Sy. No. 173/1, the name of notified khatedar is notified as Basamma W/o. Gurappa (Chandrashekar S/o. Basavantaraya) and in respect of Sy. No. 173/2, the name of notified Khatedar is notified as Shivayogayya S/o. Veerayya, who is none other than tile father of the petitioner. In the said final declaration, it is mentioned that as per 4(1) Notification, Sy. No. 173/1 and as per Joint Measurement Certificate, Sy. No. 173/2, measuring an extent of 09 acres 25 guntas. Since both Sy. No. 173/1 and Sy. No. 173/2 are mentioned in the final declaration, as per the 4(1) Notification and also as per JMC, the Land acquisition Officer has rightly passed the award and issued the award notice u/s 12 (2), referring both the survey numbers and notifying the name of the notified khatedars in the khatedars column. Therefore, I do not find any error of law or illegality as such committed by the first respondent in notifying the names of Basamma, W/o. Gurappa (Chandrashekar S/o. Basavantaraya) and Shivayogayya W/o. Veeriah, who is none other than the father of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that, referring survey No. 173/1, in the award notice issued u/s 12 (2) of the Act, on the basis of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in not in consonance with Sl. No. 4 in the final declaration issued u/s 6(1) of the Act, referred above and due to the dispute between these two parties regarding the extent of land, the matter has been referred to the jurisdictional Reference Court for adjudication to decide the title of the property, which is pending in L.A.C.No. 148/1997, on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Gulbarga. Therefore, there was no necessity for the petitioner to have redressed his grievance before this Court to establish that he is the absolute owner of an extent of 09 acres 25 guntas of land and that Basamma W/o. Gurappa (Chandrashekar S/o. Basavantaraya) have no stake in the matter nor they are the owners of the said extent of land in the said survey number, as the Reference Court would decide the same, after affording opportunity to both the parties. Therefore, taking all these aspects into consideration, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to workout his remedy where the matter is pending adjudication in L.A.C.No. 148/1997, on the file of III Addl. City Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Gulbarga. The learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.) Gulbarga is directed to dispose of the matter, on top priority basis, on merits of the ease, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court, during the course of its order, as early as possible, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.