B U DALU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Issue rule. The petitioner's land measuring 0. 71 acre was acquired for the implementation of Harangi Project and an award was made for payment of Rs 47,295/- by way of compensation, payable to the petitioner and his brother. A notice dated 25-5-1988 (Annexure A) was issued to the petitioner intimating that award has been made and intimating him that the compensation would be paid on 29-9-1988. According to the petitioner, when he went to the office of the 2nd respondent, instead of making the payment, he was asked to go to the office again and again and that he visited the office of the 2nd respondent on many occasions and he had to spend over Rs. 3.000/- in this regard. Even then, the amount was not paid to him and consequently he had to file this writ petition on 10-1-1989 seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to make an immediate payment of the compensation awarded And notified as per Annexure A. Having regard to the fact stated in the writ petition, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to take notice on 11-1-1989. Thereafter the writ petition was adjourned atleast on two occasions, the . last adjournment being on 30-3-1989.

(2.) The facts of the case are quite simple. All that the respondents had to state, is the reason for not paying the compensation to the petitioner inspite of the award made under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In case there was a proper reason for the non-payment, which had to be explained by Filing a statement of objections, the respondents could have instructed the learned Government Pleader the nature of their defence, so that, he could have placed the said plea, atleast generally, before the Court. If the respondents point out a plausible defence, this Court always grants sufficient time to the respondents to file the objection statement or issues rule nisi, instead of keeping the matter in the Preliminary Hearing List, Object of issuing a notice under the priviso to rule 13 of the Writ Proceedings Rules as to why rule Nisi should not be issued (i.e. notice re : Rule) is to find out as to whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, or whether the petitioner's explanation regarding laches (in case of delay) is prima facie acceptable, or whether the grievance of the petitioner could be satisfied by an explanation of the respondent or whether petitioner's assertion of facts in the writ petition is patently erroneous or correct etc. The practice of issuing notice re : Rule is an exception to the normal practice of issuing Rule Nisi whenever petitioner makes out a prima facie case or an arguable case.

(3.) In a substantial number of cases, facts would be simple and straight; an interpretation of a clause in the statute or a document may be involved ; Court may have a doubt in respect of certain assertions made by the petitioner ; in some cases respondent may come forward with a ready answer either willing to the grant of relief to the petitioner or point out the flaw in the petitioner's case disentitling him to any relief. It is not possible to categories the innumerable circumstances under which the Court may issue notice re: Rule. But most of those cases may involve fact situations as stated above. The purpose of this proviso to Rule 13(a) is to enable the disposal of such cases early, instead of keeping them accumulated with other cases involving complicated questions.