SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER INDI TALUK Vs. MALLAREDDEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH these matters are posted for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of as follows:

(2.) THE respondent in these two revision petitions have filed the application under Section 18 (3) (b) of the karnataka Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the 'act') seeking a direction to the common petitioner in both the revision petitions-Special land Acquisition Officer, indi Taluk, Bijapur to submit reference to the land Acquisition Court in file No. LAQ. SR. 42-44/202-03 Part-Ill, UKP, Indi for determination of the market value in respect of the land bearing survey No. 68 measuring 08 acres 36 guntas (in LAC No. 5/2006 and C. R. P. No. 58/2007) and Sy. No. 18/a, measuring 01 acre 20 guntas, both situate at Chincholi Village, shorapur Taluk, Gulbarga District. Along with the said lands, several other lands belonging to other persons were notified and acquired by the state Government for the purpose of formation of Indi Lift irrigation branch Canal. The respondent in first revision petition has filed by application, contending that, the land in question is irrigated land and there is a well; and so far as the respondent in second petition is concerned, she has contended that, the land in question is an irrigated land. It is the further case of respondents in both petitions that, immediately after receipt of the award notice issued under section 12 (2) of the Act, they have filed the application under Section 18 (1) of the land Acquisition Act seeking reference for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and they are entitled for enhancement by treating the lands in question as irrigated lands. In spite of filing the 18 (1) reference application, immediately after receipt of award notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, seeking enhancement of compensation, common petitioner herein failed to refer the said matter for adjudication before the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, respondent in these two petitions were constrained to file the application under Section 18 (3) (b) of the land Acquisition Act, seeking appropriate direction, as referred above. The Trial Court after hearing the Counsel representing the respective parties, on the basis of the pleadings available on file, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and by framing necessary points for consideration has answered point No. l in affirmative by assigning reasons at paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of its order and by its final order has allowed the applications filed by respondent herein and directed them to submit the reference in both the petitions in respect of the files referred above along with necessary documents for adjudication of the matter under Section 18 (1) of the Land acquisition Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned common order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Shorapur, common petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant revision petitions.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader appearing for common petitioner, at the outset submitted that, the respondents in these two petitions have, in fact, not filed any application under section 18 (1) of the Act before the petitioner and therefore, the application filed under Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act filed by respondent in both petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. In order to substantiate the said stand, she vehemently submitted that, petitioner-Special Land acquisition Officer has passed the consent award and therefore, as per the judgment of this court reported in I. L. R. 2000 Karnataka P. 1838, the land owners have no right to file the reference application against the consent award passed by the competent authority. Therefore, she submitted that, the impugned common order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous in law and without any jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside at the threshold itself. Further, she strenuously submitted that, learned Civil Judge has failed to consider provisions of Section 18 (3) (b) of the Act, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned common order passed by learned Civil Judge is liable to be set aside.