LAWS(KAR)-2006-9-89

U. BASAPPA Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND AO

Decided On September 05, 2006
U. Basappa Appellant
V/S
Assistant Commissioner And Ao Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10th Septemeber 2003 in Misc. Case No. 200/2002 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kudligi, dismissing the petition filed by Petitioner under Section 18(3)(b) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act, has presented the instant revision petition.

(2.) THE Petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 319 -D measuring 03.74 acres situate at Torangal village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District which was notified and acquired for the Vijayanagara Steel Project and an award was passed in LAC No. 24/75 -76 on 13th July 1976. The Petitioner received the award amount under protest. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, on the ground that, the amount awarded is inadequate, filed the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court for enhancement of compensation and the same was numbered as LAC No. 6/1984 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) Bellary. The said reference application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Reference Court by its order dated 19th October 1984. Assailing the correctness of the said order, Petitioner has filed the Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP. No. 238/1985. The revision petition filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed by this Court. Be that as it may.

(3.) THE principal ground urged by the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner in the instant revision petition is that, the Court below has committed a grave error in holding that, the petition filed under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act is not maintainable on the ground that, the earlier application filed by the Petitioner was rejected. It is his case that, the Reference Court has taken a hyper technical view stating that the reference itself is bad in law as the same is made after a period of three years. Further, he vehemently submitted that, earlier rejection of reference on the ground that, it is bad in law does not disentitle the Petitioner to make an application for making valid reference along with an application for condonation of delay, as clearly held by this Court in a case reported in 2001 (1) LACC 208, 1999 (2) K.L.J.P.246 etc. When such being the position, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition filed by the Court below is erroneous and unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.