M N GURUMURTHY REDDY Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Orders will dispose of several petitions seeking the Review of Judgment dated 17th March, 2006, passed by the Division Bench presided over by H.L. Dattu (as His Lordship then was) accompanied by Justice A.S. Bopanna. THESE Review Petitions are accompanied by applications of even number seeking condonation of delay in excess of 1000 days.

(2.) THE facts germane for the decision, succinctly stated are that Preliminary Notifications were issued by the Government of Karnataka between 17.09.1992 to 17.06.1993 pertaining to the acquisition of several lands for the creation of the outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. After preliminary enquiry, these lands were acquired by issuance of Final Notifications, Possession appears to have been taken over 14 years ago on 16.01.1997. Awards dated 27.06.1996 were duly published. In circa 1999 References were made to the Civil Court for determining the market value of the lands. THEse 17 land acquisition cases (LACs) were clubbed together. Reliance has specifically been made to Ext.P-5 in those proceedings, which in fact is the Award of the Reference Court in LAC No.43/1999, fixing the market value of the land at Rs.100 per square feet. This determination, assailed in MFA No.2020/2001, has not been followed in the batch of 17 LACs, with which we are presently concerned, instead the market value has been fixed at Rs.4.62 lakhs per acre. In so far as the Review Petitions before us are concerned in circa 2003, the Bangalore Development Authority preferred Appeals seeking a reduction of the determination of market value of Rs.4.62 lakhs per acre, in which the respondents/erstwhile lands owners filed Cross Objections praying for adjudication of the market value of these lands at Rs.6.00 lakhs per acre.

(3.) OVER one year had elapsed from the date on which the present petitioners had accepted compensation at the rate of Rs.6.00 lakhs per acre and their lodging of a complaint to the Karnataka State Bar Council by letter dated 17.09.2007 to the effect that their Counsel had unauthorizedly consented to the memo. We have perused this document and it is true that it does not bear the signatures of the petitioners before us. However, it would be legally fatal to overlook the fact that the memo unilaterally prepared by the respondents, merely sought the disposal of the Appeals by allowing the Cross-Objections in toto viz., accepting the petitioners prayer for an enhancement of compensation to Rs.6.00 lakhs per acre. It is a misnomer therefore, that the leaned Advocate for the petitioners, had without obtaining instructions, conceded to the adjudication by the Division Bench of the market value of the land at Rs.6.00 lakhs per acre. It is not in controversy that the Cross Objections bear the signatures of the Petitioners. The said amount was also realized by the Petitioners by filing execution petitions.