H G SHIVANANDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction directing the respondent to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner and also for a direction to the second respondent to withdraw the proceedings in L.A.G. No. 37 of 1989 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sagar.

(2.) The facts of this case are, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land measuring 4 acres 23 guntas in Sy. No. 11 of Chikkakoralahalli village. The said land was acquired for a public purpose. Thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award as per Annexure-A. In the award the Land Acquisition Officer treated the petitioner as the owner of the land in question. After passing of the award one Viswanathappa filed a petition claiming that he is the person interested and therefore he is entitled for compensation. After receipt of the claim petition by Viswanathappa the Land Acquisition Officer having found that there is a dispute regarding the payment of compensation has referred the matter to the Civil Judge, Sagar, under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition Officer having considered the petitioner as the owner of the land while passing the award ought not to have referred the matter to the Civil Judge under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and on the other hand, he should have directed Viswanathappa to approach a Civil Court for a decree for declaration that Viswanathappa is the owner of the property. In this connection, the Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. G.H. Grant v State of Bihar. In this case the Supreme Court has held as follows :

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner nextly contended that the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have referred the dispute if at all if there is any dispute within the period of limitation i.e., 3 years 90 days as held by this Court. The decision of this Court is in respect of a reference under Section 18 of the Act. In a case of dispute that may be referred under Section 30 is concerned, no limitation is prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the dispute referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Civil Judge is well within his powers and therefore I am of the view that there is no substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. The Counsel for the petitioner prayed for a direction to withdraw the amount from the revenue deposit and to deposit the same in the civil deposit. The said prayer can be made before the Civil Judge where the reference is pending and if such prayer is made the Civil Court is directed to consider the same.