MANIKYAMMA Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by the claimant in LAC No. 14/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, H.B. Halli, Itinerary sitting at Senior Civil Judge, Huvinahadagali, whereby the reference made by the respondent No.2-L.A.O. under Sec. 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, was rejected by the Reference Court.

(2.) The material on record discloses that pursuant to the petitioner's land being acquired by the respondents for Singataluru Lift Irrigation Project, the petitioner received compensation from the respondent and sought enhancement by seeking reference under Sec. 18(3)(b) of the Act. The said proceedings having been contested by the respondent, the Reference Court formulated two points for consideration, which are as under:

(3.) After answering point no.1 in favour of the petitioner- claimant, thereby holding that the reference was within limitation, Reference Court proceeded to consider point no.2 with reference to compensation. While doing so, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the compensation was paid by the respondents to the petitioner pursuant to a consent award dtd. 10/9/2008 under Sec. 11(2) of the Act and consequently having accepted compensation under a consent award, the claim for enhancement under Sec. 18 was not maintainable. However, a perusal of the records of the Reference Court and the material on record before this Court will indicate that the alleged consent award dtd. 10/9/2008 referred to by the Reference Court in the impugned order was neither available before the Reference Court nor was the same admitted in evidence or produced by any of the parties so as to enable the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had received compensation pursuant to a consent award.