SULOCHANA AND CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB AND UDUPI POWER CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitions coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, are considered for final disposal. The petitioners claim to be owners of land bearing Sy. No. 437/3 measuring 17 cents of Yelluru village, Udupi Taluk and District which was said to have been acquired by Respondents 1 and 2 in favour of Respondent No. 3 for a power project. Since the project could not be implemented within a reasonable time, by virtue of decision it was resolved to pay revised compensation to the land owners who had lost their lands by virtue of acquisition proceedings. Since compensation was not readily disbursed in the first instance, a writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 3432/2008 by similarly placed petitioners, wherein a joint memo was filed between the parties that compensation amount would be disbursed to the other similarly placed land owners. However, the respondents had fixed a meager compensation in respect of the petitioners' lands in spite of the fact that there was a direction in respect of similarly placed petitioners in W.P. No. 3432/2008 and other connected writ petitions wherein the KIADB had been directed to disburse the enhanced compensation amount to land owners and other similarly placed persons. The petitioners claiming that they are also entitled to the very benefit by a parity of reasoning, have approached this court.

(2.) HOWEVER , the claim of the petitioners is strongly resisted by the Respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that it is indeed true that this court in W.P. No. 3432/2008 had directed that revised compensation be paid to the land holders. The petitioners had produced a Partition Deed claiming to be legal heirs of one Raghavendra Thanthri in respect of land bearing No. 211/1 measuring 0.48 acres and land in Sy. No. 437/3 measuring 0.15 acres which was acquired for industrial purpose and the compensation amount was paid in respect of those items of lands. Subsequently, one Kamala Shettigarthi had produced an order of the Land Tribunal whereby she had been granted occupancy rights in respect of the land in Sy. No. 211/1 and she had received compensation in respect of the said property. Petitioners though had knowledge of the passing of the order by the Land Tribunal, had not challenged the same and that had attained finality and the second respondent immediately on realizing the duplicity of having released compensation amount in favour of the petitioners as well as Kamala Shettigarthi, had called upon the petitioners to repay the amount of compensation which was wrongly claimed and received and that failing which, action would be taken to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. In spite of notice, the petitioners have not complied and therefore, have made wrongful gain and in spite of it have approached this court for additional reliefs and hence, seeks to resist and deny the claim of the petitioners while seriously questioning the bona fides of the petitioners.