KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT Vs. MALLARADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the judgment and award dated 31.03.2011 in LAC No. 58/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Maddur, whereby the Court below has enhanced the compensation from Rs. 17/- per sq.ft. to Rs. 250/- per sq.ft. Petitioner is a Corporation established under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a State Government undertaking. It was established with the object of executing the project relating to road development in the State of Karnataka. It takes up the projects from Public Works and Inland Water Transport Departments for the construction of roads and expansion projects.

(2.) The Deputy Commissioner of Mandya District had issued notification dated 17.01.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act') for acquisition of land at Gejjalagere village, Maddur taluk, Mandya District for widening of the Bangalore - Mysore State Highway No. 17. This was followed by a final notification dated 16.01.2006. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs. 17/- per sq.ft. Being dissatisfied with the award, the first respondent filed an application (Annexure 'B') under Section 18(1) of the Act for determining higher market value. The second respondent referred the matter to the Civil Court on 22.06.2007. The Civil Court registered the reference as LAC No. 58/2007. It has enhanced the compensation at Rs. 250/- per sq.ft.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the lands have been acquired for the widening of the State Highway No. 17. The notification issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act shows that the petitioner is the executing agency of the work. The petitioner is allocated with the funds by the State Government. The compensation amount is paid through the petitioner being the executing agency. Thus, the petitioner is interested in the reference. The order of reference does not contain the name of the petitioner. Petitioner had no notice of the proceedings pending before the Court. The name of the petitioner finds a place in the award as respondent No. 1. Since the petitioner is interested person in the reference, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have included its name in the reference and the reference Court ought to have issued the notice under Section 20(b) and (c) of the Act to the petitioner.