RAMGONDA LAYAPPA BIRAJDAR Vs. APPARAYA AMAGONDA KHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Petitions arise out of an award dated 23rd March 2000 passed under Section 11 of the Land acquisition Act 1984, hereinafter called as "the said act. " While the Writ Petition No. 2932 of 2001 has been filed by the claimants seeking direction for disbursement of amount to them in accordance with the said award consequent to acquisition of their land, the Writ petition No. 1437 of 2002 has been filed by the State government challenging the said award on various grounds including the ground relating to abuse of powers amounting to fraud by the Land Acquisition Officer in the matter of fixation of compensation to be awarded to the claimants.

(2.) BY Notification issued under Section 4 of the said act on 30th October 1997, certain pieces of land belonging to the respondents and situated in the village of Bhivargi and Karajagi in the Taluka-Jath district-Sangli, admeasuring about 293. 47 hectares were sought to be acquired by invoking provisions of Section 17 (4) of the said Act. The possession of the land was taken in April 1997 on payment of 80% of the price of the lands as the compensation in advance to the petitioners. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on 19th March 1998 and the award was passed on 23rd March 2000. Meanwhile though Notices under Section 9 (3) were issued on 26th March 1998, but in response thereof no claim was received from the interested persons.

(3.) AFTER the declaration of award, there was report made by the Collector of Sangli on 14th February 2001 alleging various irregularities having been committed in relation to the assessment procedure by the Land acquisition Officer while fixing the compensation, as also of non compliance of conditions attached to approval order by the Government in respect of award in the proceedings in question. Consequent thereto, further enquiries were conducted and it is the contention of the state that the enquiries revealed various acts on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer disclosing commission of fraud in relation to compensation awarded under the said award as well as in respect of disbursement of amount awarded thereunder. Since the petitioner-State in view of the provisions comprised under Section 50 of the said Act being unable to make reference under Section 18 of the said Act, has filed the present petition. It is the case of the State that while approving the proposed draft of the award, the Government had brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer certain irregularities and the approval was subject to specific conditions to the effect that the Land acquisition Officer was required to re-assess the land as he had ignored different classes of land as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court, as also the guide-lines laid down by the Government in relation to the value of the land and the procedure to be followed by the Land acquisition Officer in that regard. It is the case of the State that, if the Land Acquisition Officer were to follow those guide-lines and statutory provisions in relation to the methodology for the purpose of assessing compensation to be awarded for the land acquired, the compensation which could have been awarded to the respondents, would have been much less than what has been awarded under the impugned award. Plain reading of the impugned award, according to the State, discloses a clear case of abuse of powers by the Land Acquisition Officer as also malafide exercise of discretion in awarding the compensation contrary to the conditional approval granted by the Government and various decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court on the point of fixation of compensation in such cases. The very act of ignoring specific direction issued by the Government while granting the approval would disclose a clear case of abuse of powers by the Land Acquisition Officer, more particularly bearing in mind the provisions of Section 11 of the said Act. Reliance is placed in the decisions of apex Court in the matter of Santosh Kumar and others v/s central Warehousing Corporation and another reported in 1986 (2)CC 343; Envelop Lignite Corporation Limited vs special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), reported in (1995)1 SCC 221 and Commissioner of Customs, Kandla versus essar Oil Limited and others, reported in 2004 (11) SCC 364 in support of contentions sought to be canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner-State.