SIDDARAMAPPA MURGAPPA KUDAGI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lands belonging to the petitioners in these petitions were declared to be required for a public purpose by issuing notification under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short 'the Act' ). Thereafter, in a proceeding relating to passing of the award as required under Section 11 of the Act, the tand owners executed an agreement agreeing to receive the compensation by giving up the rights insofar as solatium and additional market value is concerned. On the basis of the said agreement the LAO passed the consent award. These awards are called in question by the petitioners in these petitions on the following grounds : a) The agreements relied upon by the LAO for the purpose of passing a consent award ought not to have been relied upon since the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on the blank papers and these papers were thereafter filled up and treated as agreements for the purpose of passing the awards. b) When once an application is filed for reference under section 18 (1) of the Act, the LAO. , has no jurisdiction to reject the said application in the absence of conferment of such power on the LAO.

(2.) IN order to consider the first contention. I called upon the learned Government. Pleader to produce the records to know whether there is a valid agreement for the purpose of passing the award. Pursuant to that direction, the learned Government Advocate has produced the records wherein, I find the petitioner in WP. 36840/99 has signed the agreement in English. This shows that he is not an illiterate. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that they are illiterates and have affixed their signatures on the blank papers, is stated to be rejected.

(3.) INSOFAR as the petitioner in WP No. 36748/99 is concerned it is submitted that the land of the petitioner is irrigated land as described in the award itself and therefore, the LAO. , was not right in awarding market value treating the said land as a dry land. In this case also the award has been passed on the basis of the agreement executed by the petitioner. The award that may be passed as required under section 11 of the Act is only an offer made by the LAO. If the land owner is not satisfied with the award, it is open for him to make an application for reference as required under Section 18 of the Act.