KURI DODDA HANUMAPPA Vs. SPECIAL ASST COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of eight revisions raise a common question of law and, therefore, are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) This relevant original petitions and Misc Appeals, out of which these revisions arise, in the Courts of the Civil and Dist Judges at Bellary, are respectively as follows : Original petitions: 137 & 164/65, 139/64, 141, 140, 142, 165 and 166[65. Misc Appeals, 56, 58, 59, 63, 62, 60, 61 and 57/1971.

(3.) All these relate to proceedings arising out of notifications undei Ss.4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act dt.14-10-1941 and 9-7-1964 respectively . It is unnecessary to refer to the other derails regarding the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court of reference for the present purpose, as the question raised is one of pure law as shall be presently indicated. It is, however, necessary to refer to four circumstances, which are undisputed: (1) Although the notification under S-4 of the L.A.Act had been published as far back as on 14-10-1941, the final notification of acquisition came to the published only on 9-7-1964, i.e., nearly 23 years there after; (2) the, compensation awarded by the LAO has been received by the revision petitioners, albeit under protest, only on 30-9-64; (3) the compensation wa,s enhanced by the Civil Judge on a reference under S.18 of the L.A Act only in the first three of the original petitions enumerated earlier, and no increase has been granted in the remaining cases; and (4} the conrerned acauisitions arose out of a common notification under S.6 of the Land Acquisition Act.