SHIVAPPA MALLAPPA JIGALUR Vs. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these civil revision petitions, the basic and paramount question that arises for consideration of the Court is whether technicalities, nay, technical tortures should be allowed to have their unrighteous free play and sway so as to frustrate the valuable substantive rights of the owners of the acquired lands to receive interest on solatium and additional market value under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') and whether the Court should permit the so-called 'welfare state' to make unlawful gains at the peril and cost of its constituents. The State and instrumentalities of the State, wherever they are parties to a litigation, should win or lose the litigation on substantive grounds and not on technical tortures. Such posture on the part of the State and its instrumentalities would add something sensible, something enduring, something praiseworthy to sustain their image of being a "welfare state". The State and instrumentalities of the state should not be cantankerous in their dealings or act like Shylock for a pound of flesh. Alas! in this case, the State Government does not seem to have imbibed the finery to be practised when it is sued. The entitlement of the owners of the acquired land to receive interest on solatium and additional market value is not disputed by the State government, but, payment of interest on solatium and additional market value is denied putting forth untenable procedural hazards, if we may say so. The motive behind the impugned State action is apparent and that is to make unlawful gain in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 28 and/or Section 34 of the Act and the binding judgments of the Supreme Court.

(2.) THE background facts leading to the filing of these civil revision petitions under Section 151 of the CPC in this Court be noted briefly first and they are as follows: The lands concerned in these civil revision petitions were acquired by Government of Karnataka invoking its eminent domain power for a public purpose, to wit, for submergence of hirehalla project by issuing Section 4 (1) notification dated 27-10-1994. The Land Acquisition Officer after conducting award inquiry and placing reliance on sales statistics passed awards fixing market value at the rate of rs. 21,500/- per acre. The owners of the acquired land feeling dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer sought reference of their claims for higher compensation to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Act by filing necessary applications. On such reference, the Civil Court, after conducting trial, fixed the market value at the rate of rs. 50. 000/- per acre its awards dated 30-11-1998, but, the Civil Court did not award interest on solatium and additional market value.

(3.) THE owners of the acquired lands preferred M. F. A. Nos. 837 of 2002 and batch of appeals to this Court with the delay of 1072 days seeking interest on solatium and additional market value. Since there was delay in preferring the appeals they had filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. A learned single Judge of this Court (A. M. Farooq, J.) without notice to the respondents, by judgment and order dated 20-3-2002 dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation on the ground that the explanation offered by the appellants for condoning the delay was not satisfactory. While doing so learned Judge in paragraph 7 of the judgment was pleased to observe: "the appellants could have sought review of the order before the Reference Court in view of the judgment of tne Hon'ble supreme Court", thereby meaning, in the context, the judgment of the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v Union of India.