P KESHAVA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKARESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the counsel for the Review Petitioner and Govt. Advocate for respondent-1 and counsel for respondents-2 to 4.

(2.) THE petitioner herein had filed Writ Petition in No. 41864/2002 challenging the endorsement refusing to pay the compensation to the petitioner in respect of acquisition of 4 acres of land situated in Sy. No. 28 of Doddasanne village of Devanahali taluk. The endorsement further reads that compensation would be paid to the petitioner provided he gets a declaratory relief from the competent Civil Court. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before this Court contending that one Rudramuni was the owner of 4 acres of land in Sy. No. 28 of Doddasanne village of Devanahalli taluk and he had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 15. 9. 84. Since the date of purchase, he was in lawful possession of the same. According to him. his vendor Rudramuni had been granted this land under a grant certificate. It was the case of the petitioner that all the revenue records were standing in the name of the vendor prior to purchase of the property and subsequently mutation entries and other revenue entries were transferred to the petitioner. He has also produced the saguvali chit issued in favour of his vendor by the revenue authorities as per Annexure-E to the Writ Petition. A notification under section 28 (1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 was issued on 8. 6. 96 proposing to acquire the land along with the adjacent lands for the establishment of the international Airport. The name of the petitioner is also found in the said notification. A final notification was also issued on 8. 8. 96 under Section 28 (4) of the Act. Even in the final notification, the name of the petitioner finds a place. Thereafter a claim petition was filed by the petitioner and an award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer as per Annexure-R. The land Acquisition Officer while passing the award the failed to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner; on the ground that in respect of Block No. 44, as against the total area of 41 acres, claim was made by different persons to an extent of 80 acres. Relying on a report of the Deputy Commissioner, the Land Acquisitional Officer held that the saguvali chit of the petitioner's vendor and other claimants were fake, and they are not entitle to claim compensation. Accordingly no compensation was awarded to the petitioner and other rival claimants. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the State Government to pay the compensation payable to the claimants and the same was refused as per Annexure-S to the Writ Petition. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition was filed contending that the Land Acquisition Officer has committed an error in issuing a endorsement as per Annexure-S dated 11. 7. 2002.

(3.) A learned Judge of this Court after hearing the parties on 4. 2. 2004 dismissed the writ petition directing the petitioner herein to file a civil suit for declaration of title and further directed the respondents in the writ petition to pay compensation with all statutory benefits and interest, if such decree is obtained by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the writ petition contending that the order of the learned Judge is an error apparent on the face of the record, present review petition is filed by the petitioner stating that the learned single Judge has committed an error in directing the petitioner to file a civil suit contrary to the provisions of sections 30 and 31 of the L. A. Act and further contending that there is an error on the face of the record requesting this Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge on 4. 2. 2004 and to quash Annexure-S to the writ petition.