KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MLBC DIVN. NO. 2, NAVILUTEERTH, SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA PROJECT, SAUNDATTI, NOW AT OPP. HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, U.P. HILLS, DHARWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the beneficiary of the acquisition of land - Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited is calling in question the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, in Civil Misc. No. 75/2007 dated 26.08.2009 vide Annexure -B. The said misc. petition was filed invoking Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2007 passed in LAC No. 109/2004 in so far as it pertained to awarding of interest with effect from the date of Section 4(1) notification. The land belonging to respondents No. 2 was acquired by issuing a preliminary notification invoking Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') on 06.03.2003. This was followed by final notification. An award came to be passed on 31.03.2004 fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 48,000/ - per acre along with admissible statutory benefits. The claimant sought, for reference to the Civil Court. On reference, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, enhanced the market value and fixed it at Rs. 1,50,000/ - per acre. He awarded, solatium at 30% on the enhanced market value along with 12% additional market value admissible under Section 23(1 -A) from the date of Section 4(1) notification till the dace of the award. Interest was awarded at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification under Section 4(1) for one year and at 15% thereafter till the date of payment. The judgment in LAC by the reference was passed on 28.6.2007. The petitioner did not choose to prefer any appeal against the judgment However, an application for review of the judgment and decree was made contending inter ail that award of interest with effect from the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification is illegal, as the same is not permissible under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, the order passed by the High Court in the case of Smt. Lingamma and Ors. v. Gangadharaiah and Ors. ILR 2008 Kar 2450 was relied upon to contend that the review was maintainable.

(2.) THE reference Court has rejected the review petition holding that the review was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) AT the outset, it has to be stated that the petitioner had a remedy of preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the reference Court as provided under Section 54 of the Act and as amended by the Karnataka Amendment. The said provision reads as under: 54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court in. any proceedings under this Act to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of that Court.