SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. SRIKANT PUNDLIK BANAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making in these petitions, with the consent of the learned AGA for the petitioner, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) RESPONDENTS thought served with notice of the petitions, have remained absent and are unrepresented.

(3.) FACTS not in dispute are: the state in exercise of eminent domain power, acquired immovable properties being house sites with buildings belonging to the respondents, amongst others, to wit for Upper Krishna Project, by issuing notifications under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short 'act'. One of the persons interested, aggrieved by the determination of the market value in the award of the Land Acquisition officer had its representation referred to the Civil Court for higher compensation which when numbered as LAC No. 999/1999 was clubbed with four other reference applications of other interested persons, and the Civil Court, by judgment and award dated 8-6-2004 determined the market value and enhanced the compensation by 50%. Respondents herein, though did not seek reference of their disputes for enhancement of compensation, to the Civil Court, nevertheless filed representations dated 19. 7. 2004 and 8-9-2004 acknowledged by the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of the compensation, under section 28aof the Act, indisputably, within the period of limitation, which when not responded to, by an enquiry and notices to all persons interested as required by sub-Section (2) of section 28-A, impelled the respondents to file petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the civil court, under sub-Section (3) of Section 18 read with Section 28-A of the Act, for reference to the Civil Court of their representations for re-determination of the compensation. In the said proceeding, the Land Acquisition Officer entered appearance and filed Statement of objections interalia contending that the petitions were not maintainable as Section 28a invested a jurisdiction in the land Acquisition Officer to consider, hold an enquiry, extend opportunity to the persons interested and pass orders on the claims for re-determination of compensation. Despite such a contention being advanced, strangely during the entire proceedings, the Land Acquisition officer did not exercise a jurisdiction vested in him. The Civil Court, by the orders impugned directed the Land Acquisition Officer to forward the applications filed under section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the judgment and award in LAC No. 999/1999. Hence, these Revision petitions.