HANAMAPPA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NARAYANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question, which we are required to answer in this civil revision petition, is as to whether the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer/deputy Commissioner to the Civil Court beyond three years and ninety days from the date of the reference application made, is barred; and whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a reference and consider the claim of the claimant for adjudication for payment of higher compensation.

(2.) ). A few undisputed facts that are relevant for disposal of this revision petition, may be set out as under :

(3.) SRI Gadag, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1992 Kant 97) (supra) does not lay down the correct law and the said decision requires to be reconsidered as pointed out by the orders of reference made by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of this Court, referred to above. He pointed out that sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act only mandates any person interested in the land, which has been acquired, who has not accepted the Award, to make a written application to the Deputy Commissioner/land Acquisition Officer requiring him to refer the matter for determination to the Civil Court. He further submitted that there is no limitation provided either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Central Act prescribing any limitation for making a reference by the Land Acquisition Officer to the Court; and the only requirement of law is that the person interested in the land (hereinafter referred to as "the claimant") must make an application within ninety days from the date of service of notice from the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act; and since it is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioner had made an application within ninety days as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of his application to the Civil Court, it is not permissible for the Civil Court to reject the reference made, on the ground that the reference was made beyond three years and ninety days from the date of the reference application. The learned Counsel pointed out that the object of sub-section (3) (a) of Section 18 of the Act, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 68 of 1984, wherein it is provided that the Deputy Commissioner should make a reference to the Court within ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, is to compel him to discharge his statutory duty of making reference of the reference application with utmost expedition. He further pointed out that sub-section (3) (b) of Section 18 of the Act is only an enabling provision wherein a right is given to the claimant to move the Court seeking reference in the event of Deputy Commissioner/land Acquisition Officer fails to make a reference within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application. Therefore, the learned Counsel would point out that the view taken by this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1992 Kant 97) (supra) that the Deputy Commissioner/land Acquisition Officer cannot make a reference beyond three years and ninety days, does not lay down the correct law and, therefore, the same requires to be reconsidered. In support of his plea, he strongly relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Balappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, ILR 1989 Kant 1931, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court (Shivashankar Bhat, J.) has taken the view that barring of the right to move the Court after the period of limitation under Section 18 (3) (a) and (b) of the Act cannot result in taking away the competency of the Deputy Commissioner to discharge his statutory function of making the reference so long as the initial application made under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is pending undisposed of. The learned Counsel also has referred to the unreported decision of this Court in the case of Gurusangappa v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Revision Petition Nos. 305 to 310/86) disposed of on 11th of March 1988) wherein the then Chief Justice of this Court (P. C. Jain, J.) had taken the view similar to the one taken by this Court in the case of Balappa (supra ). The learned Counsel relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Tukkareddy, ILR 1995 Kant 2073 : (AIR 1996 Kant 26), submitted that though there is no provision provided in Section 18 of the Act making it obligatory on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to inform the claimant about the fate of his application, having regard to the nature of the duties conferred on the Deputy Commissioner, it is necessary that such an obligation must be read into the Section and in the absence of any intimation given to the claimant rejecting the application, the period of pendency of the application before the Deputy Commissioner must be excluded while computing the period of limitation as provided under Section 15 (2) of the Act.