MAHABALEGOWDA Vs. LAO AND ASST COMMR KOPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions arise out of the common judgment and award dated 27th June 2003 in LAC. No. 13/2001 (CRP. No. 3218/2003), LAC. No. 12/2001 (CRP. No. 3216/2003 and LAC. No. 14/2001 (CRP. No. 3219/2003) respectively on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gangavati.

(2.) THE grievance of the claimants petitioners in these civil revision petitions is that, the land bearing SY. No. 8/a measuring 04 acres 07 guntas of lngaldal Village, Gangavati taluk (CRP 3218/2003 and LAC No. 13/2001); the land bearing Sy. No. 13/1 measuring 05 acres 13 guntas of lngaldal Village, Gangavati Taluk (CRP 3216/2003 and LAC No. 12/2001) and land bearing Sy. No. 5 measuring 06 acres 38 guntas of lngaldal Village, Gangavati Taluk (CRP 3219/2003 and LAC No. 14/2001) had been notified and acquired by the State Government for public purpose, i. e. for construction of lngaldal tank vide preliminary notification dated 3rd December 1990 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 7th March 1991 followed by final declaration issued under Section 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition on 17th March 1992, published in the Karnataka Gazette on 2nd April 1992. After issuing the final declaration, notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued, calling upon the claimants-petitioners herein to file the claim application seeking compensation. The Land Acquisitionist Officer, after taking into consideration the relevant factors such as the nature of land, potentiality of lands, etc. has passed the award dated 15th April 1994. After passing the award under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, award notice was issued to the claimants petitioners herein. The petitioners herein have filed the application under Section 18 (1) of the land Acquisition Act on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition officer is inadequate and requested the Land Acquisition officer to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court in turn, numbered the said reference applications as LAC Nos. 13/2001, 12/2001 and 14/2001 respectively. The said applications had come up for consideration before the Reference Court and the Reference Court has rejected the applications on the ground that, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is beyond the period of two years from the date of final notification and that, the said award cannot be accepted under Section 11 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Assailing the correctness of the impugned common order passed by the Reference Court, Rejecting the applications filed by these petitioners under Section 18 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant civil revision petitions.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for claimants petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents for considerable length of time. After careful evaluation of the entire original records available on file threadbare and after going through the grounds urged by claimants petitioners herein in, these revision petitions, including the order passed by the Reference court, the only question that arise for consideration in these revision petitions is as to: "whether the impugned order passed by the Reference Court is sustainable in law?" after critical evaluation of the original records available on file and the order passed by the Reference Court, particularly paragraph 11 of the order, it emerges on the face of the original records and the order that, the Reference Court has committed a grave error much less material irregularity. The Reference Court has rejected the applications filed by the claimants Petitioners herein on the sole ground that, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is beyond two years in as much as the final declaration is issued on 17th March 1992 and published in the official Gazette on 2nd April 1992 and the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 14th April 1994. The Reference Court has held that, even if the date of the final declaration is taken as 2nd April 1992, on which date it was published and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is taken as 15th April 1994 even though the same is accepted by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 5th July 1994, even then the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not come within the period of two years. Therefore, the Reference Court has held that, the award is not passed within two years period from the date of issuance of final declaration for the purpose of limitation as prescribed under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act when the said Section clearly stipulated that, an award under Section 11 should be passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the final declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse. The said reasoning given by the Reference Court is contrary to the relevant mandatory provisions of Land Acquisition Act. After microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file including Exhibit D1 certified copy of the award, which is made available before the Reference Court, and is very much available in the original records at Page B21, it is manifest on the face of the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer at item No. 3 of the Reference wherein, it has been Specifically referred that, the lands in question notified for acquisition have been Published on the Grama Chavadi on 28th July 1992. It is relevant to extract Section 6 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads thus: