CHENNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the endorsements dated 08.05.2014 at Annexures -F1 to F16. The petitioners are also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the respective applications of the petitioners filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) as at Annexures -D1 to D16.

(2.) THE petitioners herein claim to be agriculturists who had owned lands as per the details indicated in paragraph 1 of the petitions. The said lands were acquired by the respondents for construction of Hemavathi Right Bank Canal. The facts relating to the lands being included in the preliminary notification dated 11.03.1984 and the declaration dated 01.12.1984 as also the award passed determining the compensation in respect of the said lands are not in dispute. The petitioners claiming similar compensation as had been determined by the Reference Court in the judgment and award dated 19.09.2005 in LAC No. 112/1992 and connected cases have filed the applications under Section 28A of the Act. The said applications are claimed to have been made within the time as provided from the date of the judgment and award in LAC No. 112/1992 -and connected cases. The said applications were not considered and the petitioners issued reminders. Subsequent thereto, the impugned endorsements dated 08.05.2014 (Annexures -F1 to F16) were issued to the petitioners. In the endorsements, the respondents have indicated that the petitioners had earlier invoked the right available under Section 18 of the Act and therefore, the subsequent applications filed under Section 28A of the Act cannot be considered for grant of compensation as has been determined by the Reference Court in respect of the other land loosers. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this court.

(3.) THE respondents have filed their statement of objection and the fact that the lands having been acquired from the petitioners is not disputed. However, the contention put forth therein is similar to the endorsements which had been issued to the petitioners. Therefore, the only point for consideration herein is, in the instant facts whether the petitioners have in fact secured a determination from the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act and in that context, whether their request under Section 28A of the Act should be declined. The contention of the petitioners in that regard is that though the petitioners at the first instance had filed a Protest Petition under Section 18 of the Act and reference was made to the Reference Court, the petitioners due to their poverty and backwardness could not prosecute the proceedings before the Reference Court and determination of the proceedings was for non -prosecution and no adjudication of the claim made by the petitioners has been made on merits.