Sri Eashwarachary vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The Petitioner has called into question the third Respondent''s order, dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure-R) and the endorsement, dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure-S).

The facts of the case in brief are that the land measuring 20 guntas at Sy. No. 120/2 of Hinnaki Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District was acquired for the benefit of the second Respondent. The third Respondent had prepared the cheque towards the award amount in favour of the Petitioner. At that juncture, the Respondent Nos. 4 to 20 filed their objections (Annexure-J). The sum and substance of their objections is that the property in question is their joint family property; for some reason, the sale deed is registered only in favour of the Petitioner. It is also stated that there is no partition of the joint family properties. They requested the Respondent No. 2 not to disburse the compensation to the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 vide his order, dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure-R) directed that the matter be referred to the Reference Court. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 3 has issued the endorsement dated 30.9.2008 offering to deposit the amount with that Court where the parties would be filing the suit. The third Respondent''s said order, dated 25.9.2008 and the endorsement, dated 30.9.2008 are impugned in these petitions.

Sri N.J. Ramesh, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is the absolute and recorded owner of the property in question, as is evident from the sale deed (Annexure-A). He submits that Khatha, Pahani, etc. stand in the name of the Petitioner only. The Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 have not produced any document that they have legally recognisable interest in the lands in question. He also submits that the partition of the joint family property has already taken place on 28.1.1995 and the property in question is not one of the items therein. The learned Counsel has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Yallamma v. Shekharappa Reddy and Anr. reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1269, wherein it is held that where no prima facie case is made out by the objector or the claimant, the case need not be sent to the Reference Court u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 3 submits that, as the Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 claim that the property in question is a joint family property and that no partition has taken place in their family, the Respondent No. 3 is justified in deciding to send the matter to the Reference Court.

It is not known why the third Respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer having taken a decision on 25.9.2008 to send the matter to the Reference Court did not give effect to the said decision. The land losers cannot be made to wait indefinitely. The subsequent endorsement, dated 30.9.2008 does not refer to the earlier decision, dated 25.9.2008. The subsequent endorsement states that the compensation amount would be deposited with that Court which would be approached by the parties. Such an endorsement is wholly uncalled for. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has to examine the cases of rival claims and take a decision in the matter. If complicated questions of title or of law are involved then the matter should be referred to the Reference Court u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

The Division Bench''s judgment relied upon by the Petitioner does not come to his rescue in any way, because in the said reported case the objector''s claim for a share in the amount of compensation was based on the compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 1067/1989; the acquired lands did not figure in the compromise decree.

In the result, these petitions are allowed in part by quashing the impugned endorsement, dated 30.9.2008 (Annexure-S). The third Respondent''s order, dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure-R) is upheld with a direction to the third Respondent to send the matter to the Reference Court within two weeks from today. The Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are directed to be present before the Reference Court (I am informed at the bar that the Court of Senior Civil Judge. Anekal is designated for considering the reference cases u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act) on 12.10.2011 without waiting for any notice from the Reference Court. The Reference Court shall dispose of the anticipated reference matter within four months from the date of the receipt of the reference.

No order as to costs.