HANUMANTHE GOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the communication dated 17.4.2010 (Annexure-H) and also that portion of the award dated 28.9.2005 wherein it is stated that these petitioners would not be entitled to any compensation (Annexure-B). Consequently the petitioners have sought for directions to the respondent authorities to pass an award in their case also and disburse the compensation by considering their representation at Annexures T, F & G.

(2.) THE petitioners have contended that they are agriculturists and owners of the lands situated at Kamanayakanahalli village, Chinakuruli hobli, Srirangapatna taluk, Mandya District and that the lands belonging to the petitioners were submerged in Tonnur tank back water on account of the increase in the height of Tonnur tank and therefore the respondent authorities had decided, to acquire their lands by issuance of notifications under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). That notification u/S. 4(1) of the Act was issued on 7.4.2003, which was followed by a declaration issued u/S. 6(1) of the Act. THE petitioner have stated that their respective lands at Serial Nos. 100 to 134 of preliminary notification have been acquired but no awards have been passed in their cases. When the general award was passed on 28.9.2005 it has been stated that since the petitioners are grantees of the lands which have been acquired, they would not be entitled to any compensation. THE petitioners have also stated that insofar as one land loser by name B. Raju is concerned, who is similarly situated as the petitioner, had filed W. P. No. 18731/ 2006 before this Court, seeking directions to the respondent authorities to consider his representation and pass an award that the respondent authorities have considered the said representation and in terms of the order of this Court dated 3.3.2008, an award has been passed in his case and compensation but also been disbursed. Under the circumstances the petitioners have made representation to the respondent authorities to pass an award in their case also. But the respondent authorities not having initiated any steps in that regard, the petitioners have filed this writ petitions seeking directions to the respondent authorities to pass awards in their cases also.

(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners, the fact that the petitioners have lost their lands in the acquisition proceedings is not in dispute. IT is also not in dispute that the lands which have been lost by the petitioners were lawfully granted by the State Government to them. But despite such grant being made and even if any condition in the States grant, that the petitioners would not seek any compensation in the event of surrender or acquisition by the State Government of such lands, in view of the decision of the Apex Court and this Court the petitioners cannot be denied any compensation. In support of his submission he has relied upon the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. K.S. Ramachandra Rao and others, in AIR 1972 SC 2224 and Special Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer Sagar v. M.S. Sheshagiri Rao and another, AIR 1968 SC 1045. IT contend that even if in respect of the Government granted lands when same are acquired the grantees would be entitled to the compensation. He therefore would submit, that portion of the award dated 28.9.2005 has to be quashed and directions ought to be issued to the respondent authorities to pass an award as in the case of B. Raju which was in compliance with the directions issued by this Court.