KUSUMABAI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these six writ petitions, common questions of fact and law arise for determination for whch reason I propose to dispose of them by a common order. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is enough if I notice the facts of the case in WP.7267 of 1977.

(2.) In the year 1972, agricultural land bearing S.No. 158 of Chitapur village, Taluk: Lingsugur, measuring an extent of 18 acres and 33 guntas owned by the petitioner was acquired by the Govt under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for a public purpose viz , for submersion of Narayanapur reservoir. In accordance with the provisions of the 1894 Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Narayanapur, conducted an enquiry as to the payment of compensation payable in respect of the acquired lands and passed an award on 25-4-77 awarding a sum of Rs-48,044-97 as compensation payable to the petitioner. Evidenty no other person laid any claim before the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the Acquired lands. As required by the proviso to Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act, the SLAO submitted the award to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Upper Krishna Project, Almatti, for his approval, who by his order dated 1-6-77, Ext.B, approved the award passed by the SLAO, but directed the amount to be, deposited in the revenue deposit on the ground that the petitioner is a surplus landholder. The order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner reads thus :

(3.) Shri Murlidhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that under the 1894 Act or under any other law, the authorities have no jurisdiction and power to withhold the. payment of compensation to his clients, much less deposit the compensation amount in revenue deposit and thus virtually deny the payment of compensation for the acquired lands. Sri Annandanayya Puranik, learned. High Court Govt Advocate appearing for the respondents while refuting the contention of Sri Murlidhar Rao, valiantly supported the action of the authorities on various grounds which will be; noticed by me and dealt at a later stage. Among others, Sri Annandanayya Puranik contended that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy and therefore these are not fit cases for my interference under Art.226 of the Constitution. 3 (a) . In my opinion, there is force in the contention of Sri Murlidhar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners.