NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioning Transport Corporation, a beneficiary of the compulsory acquisition of lands in question, has called into question the order, dated 16.01.2013 (Annexure-G) passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the application filed by the private respondents under Sec. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to 'the said Act') by re-determining the market value of the land at Rs. 8,000.00 per gunta.

(2.) Sri. V. P. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first respondent Assistant Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded Rs. 18,000.00 per acre and that aggrieved by the same, some land-owners sought the reference under Sec. 18 of the said Act. He submits that the private respondents herein had not sought the reference. In the reference proceedings of other land-owners, the market value was raised to Rs. 2,000.00 per gunta by the Reference Court by its award, dated 30.09.2002. He submits that as the market value was raised upwards without making the beneficiary of the acquisition a party, it (beneficiary) filed W.P.No.35006/2004. It came to be disposed of by this Court, by its order, dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure-R1) by remanding the matter to the Reference Court for the re-determination of the market value after affording adequate opportunities to the beneficiary. On the matter being remanded and on holding the re-enquiry, the Reference Court raised the market value to Rs. 8,000.00 per gunta by its award, dated 20.12.2008. The determination of the market value at Rs. 8,000.00 was confirmed in the appeal.

(3.) Sri. V. P. Kulkarni raises two contentions. When the contesting respondents herein have not made Sec. 28-A application pursuant to the Reference Court's first award, dated 30.09.2002, they are not entitled to maintain 28-A application pursuant to the Reference Court's second award, dated 20.12.2008 and its confirmation by the Appellate Court. The second contention urged by Sri. V.P. Kulkarni is that Sec. 28-A application is not signed by all the contesting respondents. He submits that the respondent No. 19 alone has signed the said application claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the other contesting respondents. He submits that the power of attorney document itself is not produced.