MAHADEVANAIKA Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to award the benefits as has been awarded in terms of the compromise decree dated 19.11.2011 in LAC No.25/2010 and be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners are also assailing the order dated 26.07.2013 passed in LAC No.27/2010, the order dated 27.06.2013 in LAC No.29/2010, the order dated 26.07.2013 in LAC No.*28/2010 impugned at Annexures-M, N and P.

(2.) The petitioners herein were the owners of the property bearing Sy.No.33/120, 33/143 and 33/*29 to the different extents mentioned in the petition, situate in Kuppe Kolagatta village, Bilikere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk. The said lands were acquired by the respondents for establishment of the Electronic War Fare Range by the Department of Defence, Government of India and the possession was taken on 14.06.1993. A general award dated 14.06.1993 was passed determining the market value at Rs.30,000/- per acre in respect of dry as well as the garden lands. The petitioners no doubt did not seek to assail the said award at that point. However, one other land loser named Sri Jayanna Naika filed his protest petition as contemplated under Section 18 of the LA Act and the matter was referred to the Reference Court in LAC No.22/1994. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 17.11.1998 enhanced the market value of the lands to Rs.50,000 per acre. The petitioners taking benefit of such award and the provisions as contained in Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act made claim petitions before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking grant of similar compensation that had been granted and enhanced by the Reference Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the said Sri Jayanna Naika who had filed an appeal in MFA No.1021/1999 had succeeded in securing further enhancement of the compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre in respect of the garden land and Rs.50,000/- per acre in respect of dry land. In that view, the petitioner once again made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer before whom the proceedings initially made under Section 28A of the LA Act was pending. The claim of the petitioners to determine compensation to the extent as had been done in the appeal in MFA No.1021/1999 has not been accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer and by the order dated 06.07.2002, the same had been rejected. The said order is available at Annexure-A to the petition.

(3.) The petitioners instead of assailing the said order had filed an application by referring to Section 28(3) of the LA Act seeking reference to the Civil Court for redetermination of the compensation. The said applications have been dismissed by the orders impugned at Annexures-M, N and P. The redetermination has been rejected on the ground that the delay is beyond the permitted period of three years and 90 days from the date of the award. It is in that view, the petitioners are before this Court.