SHARANAPPA HEBBAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari quashing of the impugned endorsement dated 04.08.2015 vide Annexure-H, issued by the 6th respondent and Annexure-J, dated 25.07.2015 issued by the respondent No. 4.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas of Hebbal village. The fifth respondent took possession of the land of the petitioner in the year 1958 for the purpose of construction of sub-canal No. 8 for the main canal of LBC Distributory No. 25. For taking possession of the land, a preliminary notification dated, 10.01.2008 was issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'); and final notification dated, 29.10.2009 was published under Sec. 6(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.10.2010. The respondents have awarded the compensation, for which there is no dispute between the parties and the petitioner has received the award amount. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner preferred the petition under Sec. 18(1) of the Act, wherein the Civil Court enhanced the compensation and also the petitioner made an application for determination of the damages. The damages has to be calculated under Sec. 5 of the Act and also the payment of damages as fortified by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of R.L.Jain (D) by LRs. Vs. D.D.A. and others, reported in AIR 2004 SCW 1627, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that for delayed payment of such amount, appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded. But the SLAO, who is also the Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Division, Koppal has calculated the same on 16.08.2014 and held that petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,69,828.00. In order to calculate, he has prepared the table of calculations since 1961 up to the date of passing of Sec. 4(1) notification. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, which has been calculated by the respondents. Once the calculation has been made, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, for which the Assistant Commissioner cannot turn back for modifications, which is adverse to the petitioner's interest. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) This Court by order, dated 19.01.2016 directed the respondents to calculate and pay the damages. Thereafter, the respondent SLAO has passed one more order, dated 21.01.2016 and recalculated the damages and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 21,83,991.00, which is contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice, since no opportunity was given by issuing notice.