KRISHNABAI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CLAIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land and buildings of the petitioners and others in Kolhar Village of Basavan Bagewadi Taluk were notified for acquisition for the purpose of Upper Krishna Project on 01.03.1983. Since they are going to be submerged. THE Land Acquisition Officer ('LAO' for short), however, felt that there was no immediate threat of the notified lands and buildings of Kolhar Village getting submerged in the near future till 1992. Hence, he proposed to de-notify the land and buildings of the petitioners and others for the present and to issue fresh notification for acquisition, sometime before the threat of submergence is likely to happen. THE petitioners and others wanted that their lands to be acquired immediately and made a request to LAO in that behalf. THE LAO, after negotiations with the villagers, passed the consent award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) on 31.07.1989 stipulating the following conditions:

(2.) ON the said terms, the land and buildings came to be acquired by consent award dated 31.07.1989. The petitioners and other villagers made a representation to the Government for grant of statutory benefit of Solatium at 30. The LAO vide communication No. RD. 25. LAQ. 92 dated 28.06.1993 passed supplementary award on 15.07.1993, granting the benefit of solatium. However, the LAO did not grant interest on the solatium from the date of acquisition. The petitioners aggrieved by the denial of Interest, filed W.P. No. 453-491/04 and other connected petitions seeking fresh reference of the case to the LAO for re-determination of the compensation and also for grant of interest on the solatium from the date of acquisition.

(3.) IN the writ petition, the petitioners had filed the copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 19495/1990 dated 06.12.1990. The said writ petition was filed by the residents of Takkalaki village, which is hardly about 5 Kms away from Kolhar village. The lands and buildings of the petitioners were acquired for the same purpose by consent award. The terms of the consent award are verbatim similar to the case on hand. The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: