AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal is by the respondents in writ petition assailing the correctness of the order dated 03.06.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21826/2001, by the learned Single Judge, wherein the petitioner therein had questioned the correctness of the endorsement issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-''M'' dated 03.03.2001 produced thereto. Further petitioner therein had sought for a direction, directing the appellants and the second respondent herein to acquire the schedule lands in accordance with law and pay the compensation in respect of Sy. No. 1/2 situated at Imampur village, Janawada Hobali, Bidar District measuring an extent of 08 acres. The brief facts of the case are that, the land in Sy. No. 1/2 totally measured an extent of 22 acres 35 guntas situated at Imampur village, Janawada Hobali, Bidar District. Out of which, the first, appellant herein through third respondent notified and acquired the land along with other survey numbers, for the purpose of establishment of Naranja Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited vide preliminary notification dated 07.01.1991, issued u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Karnataka Gazzette on 10.09.1991 followed by the final declaration dated 04.09.1992, issued u/s 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Karnataka Gazzette on 01.10.1992. The land in question is found at Sl. No. 18 of the preliminary notification an extent of 08 acres. It is to be noted here itself that Sl. No. 17 Sy. No. 1/2 measuring 14 acres 35 guntas has been notified. The notified Khatedar is shown as Babu S/o Manik Rao and Lagu S/o Manik Rao. At Sl. No. 18 inadvertently it has been shown as Sy. No. 1/1 instead of Sy. No. 1/2 measuring an extent of 08 acres. The same error has been repeated in 6(1) notification also. But it is significant to note that the total extent of land in Sy. No. 1/2 is 22 acres 35 guntas, out of which at Sl. No. 17 notified is 14 acres 35 guntas and at Sl. No. 18 extent of land notified is 08 acres. The boundaries of Sy. No. 1/1 in the final notification issued u/s 6(1) is - East 20/1/1, West Sy. No. 77, North Sy. No. 1/2 and South road and extent of land shown as 8 acres. The 6(1) notification is a conclusive proof.
Further one more aspect to be noted is that, there is a typographical error to the effect that instead of mentioning Sy. No. 1/2, it has been typed as Sy. No. 1/1. The boundaries of Sy. No. 1/2 to an extent of 14 acres 35 guntas is East Sy. No. 1/1. West shown as Sy. No. 77, North shown as Sy. No. 24 and South shown as Sy. No. 1/2. The total extent is shown as 14 acres 35 guntas, which proves beyond reasonable doubt. The boundaries are crystal clear. But there is only a typographical error shown in Sy. No. 1/2 which has been typed as Sy. No. 1/1. It is further crystal clear that the extent of survey numbers shown differently as Sy. No. 1/2 at Sl. No. 17 is 14 acres 35 guntas and at Sl. No. 18 8 acres and further this aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice, when the matter was taken up by this Court and it appears, they have not made available the entire original records. Today learned AGA has made available the entire original records.
Further it is the case of the appellants herein that in the ledger maintained by the office of the first appellant, the amount received by the counsel representing the petitioner/first respondent is found at Sl. No. 17 first column is the name of the notified Khatedar who is the first respondent petitioner herein in Sy. No. 1/2. But the same has been tampered. They have made corrections on "2" as "1". After microscopic evaluation, it is further found that there is an intentional and deliberate attempt on the part of the person who maintained the register in manipulating they survey number by showing Sy. No. 1/1 instead of Sy. No. 1/2 which was written earlier.
Further one more aspect to be noted here itself is, the extent shown is 8 acres and the counsel who represented the petitioner has received the amount through cheques bearing Nos. 3497317 and 3497318 dated 04.02.1992. Another aspect brought to the notice of learned Single Judge is that, in the plaint presented by respondent No. 1 petitioner in O.S. No. 261/1997 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bidar it is stated that, it is a fact that, the plaintiff/petitioner/first respondent herein, long back had purchased the portion of 8 acres out of Sy. No. 1/2 from late Manohar Rao, under the registered sale deed in 1982 and for that, he has also received the compensation from the Government. These three clinching material available on file has been not brought before this Court when the matter was taken up for consideration. Keeping these relevant facts and circumstances of the case as referred above, the appellants felt necessitated to present this appeal seeking appropriate relief as stated supra.
Learned AGA appearing for the appellants, at the outset submitted that, there are lapses on the part of the appellants in not producing the entire original records and in not assisting the Court effectively. After due efforts made personally, he has made available all the original records and pointed out that Sy. No. 1/2 totally measures 22 acres 35 guntas, out of which the said survey number has been notified in two different extent of lands, as it is, 14 acres 35 guntas and 08 acres. 08 acres belongs to the first respondent/petitioner and further he submitted that if the boundaries of Sy. No. 1/2 measuring 14 acres 35 guntas and 08 acres are taken into consideration, it is clear that what is notified is Sy. No. 1/2 and not Sy. No. 1/1. There is typographical error at the time of publishing the notification, in as much as, instead of Sy. No. 1/2 measuring 08 acres land with boundaries, it has been wrongly shown as Sy. No. 1/1 inadvertently. As a matter of fact, the first respondent has accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the amount has been drawn by him through his counsel through the cheque and he has even categorically admitted in his plaint that he has purchased an extent of 8 acres in Sy. No. 1/2 in the year 1982 and also he himself has filed an affidavit before the first appellant bearing No. REV/LAQ/CR-2/91-92 stating that he purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 1/2 measuring 8 acres of Imampur village, Bidar Taluka from one Manohar Rao in the year 1982. In view of execution of the sale deed, he is the owner and possessor of the said land and further stated that he has filed O.S. No. 501/1989 on the file of Munsiff Court, Bidar and that he has withdrawn the said suit to the extent of 8 acres. Further he stated that land measuring 8 acres has been acquired for the establishment of N.S.S.K. and compensation has been paid. The 4(1) notification has been issued in the name of the deponent/the respondent no. 1/petitioner. If any objection or wrong payment, he will be held responsible and the compensation given may be recovered from him and his property. He submitted the copy of the sale deed and the copy of the judgment and Record of Rights for perusal. The said affidavit has been filed on 01.02.1992.
These credible evidence which are available in the file establish that the first respondent has intentionally and deliberately, suppressing the material fact had filed the writ petition taking undue advantage of non-mentioning of correct Sy. No. 1/2 which is wrongly shown as Sy. No. 1/1. But he has failed to establish and prove his case. If his statement made in the plaint as referred above and affidavit filed before the first appellant and if the boundaries shown in the preliminary notification and final notification are taken note of, it becomes amply clear that the amount paid to him is in respect of Sy. No. 1/2 and not in respect of Sy. No. 1/1. Therefore, learned AGA submits that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that he would adopt the submission made by the learned AGA appearing for the appellants.
As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant/the owner of the land in question substantiated the order passed by the learned Single Judge and further submitted that the said order has been passed after hearing both the parties and after due consideration of the material available on record. However, he does not dispute that the amount received by the first respondent through the cheques is in respect of Sy. No. 1/2 not in respect of Sy. No. 1/1. Therefore, she submitted that interference by this Court is not called for.
After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, after evaluation of original records available on file and after perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, the only point that arise for consideration is:
whether the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is sustainable in law?
After careful evaluation of original records available on file, specifically with reference to 4(1) and 6(1) notifications issued by the third appellant, if we see the boundaries shown in the preliminary and final notifications, it proves beyond reasonable doubt as stated supra that, what is notified in Sy. No. 1/2 to an extent of 14 acres 35 guntas at Sl. No. 17 and 8 acres at Sl. No. 18. The notified Khatedar shown in respect of 8 acres in Sy. No. 1/2 is the first respondent herein alone and he made statement in the plaint on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bidar in O.S. No. 261/1997 that "It is a fact that, the plaintiff/petitioner/respondent herein, long back had purchased the portion of 8 acres out of Sy. No. 1/2 from late Manohar Rao, under the registered sale deed in 1982 and for that, he also got compensation from the Government".
Further it is rightly pointed out by learned AGA appearing for the appellants that, the first respondent himself has filed an affidavit dated 01.02.1992 before the first appellant in proceedings No. REV/LAQ/CR-2/91-92, wherein he has categorically stated that he purchased an extent of 08 acres out of 22 acres 35 guntas in Sy. No. 1/2 situated at Imampur village, Taluka and District Bidar in the year 1982 and he has produced the copy of the judgment, withdrawing the suit filed on the file of Munsiff Court at Bidar and Record of Rights and the copy of the sale deed and requested to pay the compensation for the land measuring 8 acres to the first respondent himself as he is the notified Khatedar and the owner of the said property.
Further one more aspect to be borne in mind is that, in the register maintained by the first appellant regarding payment made in pursuance of the award passed at Sl. No. 17, in the first column, the name of first respondent has been notified with name of the village and taluka and in second column Sy. No. 1/2 has been written. The extent shown is 08 acres and the amount he is entitled is shown as Rs. 1,20,000/- and after making necessary deductions the amount paid is shown as Rs. 96,000/ through his counsel by way of cheques referred above. But however, at column No. 2 in the said payment ledger/register, it is overwritten as Sy. No. 1/1 where it was written earlier as Sy. No. 1/2. There is tampering by way of writing in a bold letter "1" but after microscopic evaluation of the said overwriting, it is found that, originally it was written as Sy. No. 1/2 only. All these clinching materials and credible documentary evidence available on file, proves beyond reasonable doubt and establishes that the compensation amount received is only in respect of Sy. No. 1/2 measuring 08 acres. But unfortunately, taking undue advantage of the typographical error showing as Sy. No. 1/1 at Sl. No. 18 instead of Sy. No. 1/2 in preliminary and final notifications, the claimant has redressed his grievance and consistently misleading the Trial Court as well as this Court also. But unfortunately, today he has been caught hold red handedly after thorough evaluation of the entire original records available on file as pointed out by us in the preceding paragraphs. However, the facts and circumstances of the case are astonishing in nature. The manner in which assistance has been given by the counsel appearing before the Single Judge cannot be appreciated. However, it must be placed on record that, the counsel who has represented the appellants in this appeal has made a very sincere and honest effort and assisted the Court effectively, by making available the original records and made fair submission, in order to arrive at a correct and proper decision. Taking all the relevant factors into consideration, as referred above, we are of the considered view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed by the appellants is allowed. Therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 03.06.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21826/2001 is hereby set aside.