Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1978 DIGILAW 162 (KAR)

KUSUMABAI v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

1978-06-20

K.S.PUTTASWAMY

body1978
( 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 :" Sub: Acquisition of lands, in village Chittapur Taluk, Lingasugur district; Raichur - lands coming under submergence of Narayanapur Dam under UKP. Read: SLAO, Narayanpur's Lr. No. UKPLAQ. 39. 69-70 d 25-4-77 submitting draft award along with the connected papers.- office of the Special Deputy Commr, laq-REG and DEV. UKP, Almatti no. . LAQ (N)SR-123 dated: 1-6-77 order the draft award along with- the connected, repords has, been perused carefully. The award passed by the SLAO, UKP, Narayanapur for 18 acres 33 guntas for Rs. 48,044-97 (Rupees forty eight thousand forty four and paise ninety seven only) is approved subject to the following: - (i) The amount of compensation declared finally by the SLAO, ukp, Narayanapur must be put in the Revenue Deposit since the landowner is a surplus holder. The award passed by the SLAO, UKP, Narayanapur for 18 acres 33 guntas for Rs. 48,044-97 (Rupees forty eight thousand forty four and paise ninety seven only) is approved subject to the following: - (i) The amount of compensation declared finally by the SLAO, ukp, Narayanapur must be put in the Revenue Deposit since the landowner is a surplus holder. The action taken must be reported to this office by 20-6-77 after complying with the above and handing over possession of the lands to the PWD. Sd/- special Deputy Commissioner, UKP, Almatti. "in pursuance of the directions of the Special Deputy Commr, the SLAO on 26-6-77 has rejected the application made by the petitioner for payment of compensation awarded by him, the validity of which is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constn. Similar is the position in the other cases also. ( 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. ( 4 ) PROVISO to Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act only confers the power of approval on the Deputy Commr. Of course, the power to approve also comprehends in itself the power not to approve the award. In my view, the power of approval is conferred on a superior authority to prevent capricious arbirtary payment of compensation or collusion between the LAO and the owner of the property and prevent loss to public exchequer. Of course, the power to approve also comprehends in itself the power not to approve the award. In my view, the power of approval is conferred on a superior authority to prevent capricious arbirtary payment of compensation or collusion between the LAO and the owner of the property and prevent loss to public exchequer. In the present case, the Special Deputy Commr has not taken exception to the award passed by the LAO on any of these grounds. On the other hand, he is satisfied that the SLAO has made a fair and proper determination of the amount payable for the lands and has approved the same. But while approving he has added a rider or a condition that the compensation amount should be deposited in the revenue deposit on the ground that the landowner is a surplus owner. It appears to me that the proviso to Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act does not confer on the Special Deputy Commr to approve the award subject to any conditions or limitations. In this view of the matter, it may not be really necessary to examine the validity of the condition imposed by the Special Deputy Commr. But, I will also assume that the Special Deputy Commr while according approval can impose conditions and examine whether the condition imposed is a condition valid in law. ( 5 ) IN his order the Special Deputy Commr has not alluded to any provision of law under which the petitioners are surplus holders and therefore the amount of compensation payable to them has to be held in revenue deposit. Evidently in holding that the petitioners are surplus holders the Special Deputy Commr had in mind the provisions of the kafnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 (Act 10 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1961 Act"), which inter alia provides for a ceiling of agricultural lands by a land owner land holder in our State. Learned Counsel for the parties also addressed their arguments before me only on that basis. It is not the case of the Special Deputy Commr that the petitioners have been declared as surplus land holders under the 1961 Act. Even in the case of a surplus land holder, the, concerned Land Tribunal, on a declaration made by the land owner, has to determine the extent of holding and the area by which such extent exceeds the ceiling area. Even in the case of a surplus land holder, the, concerned Land Tribunal, on a declaration made by the land owner, has to determine the extent of holding and the area by which such extent exceeds the ceiling area. Sub- sec (2) of Sec. 67 of the 1961 Act confers a right on the land holder to specify the land he proposes to surrender subject to the powers conferred on the Tribunal by sub-secs (3a), (4)and (5) of Sec. 67 of the 1961 Act. In respect of surplus lands also, the land owners are entitled for compensation (vide Sec. 72 of the 1961 Act ). The 1961 Act does not provide for withholding the compensation payable and to hold the same in revenue deposit till the Land Tribunal determines whether a person is 9, surplus landholder and the extent of surplus holding and all other related matters under that Act. Sec. 31 of the 1894 Act which regulates payment of compensation does not enable the authorities to withhold payment of compensation and hold it in revenue deposit in the circumstances alluded by the Special Deputy Commr. In my opinion, the condition imposed by the special Deputy Commissioner is not authorised by law and is an invalid condition. ( 6 ) ART. 31 of the Constitution even after its amendment by the 25th amendment, guarantees payment of an amount or compensation to an owner whose property is acquired for a public purpose. The 1894 Act makes elaborate provisions for determination and payment of compensation to owners of property acquired for a public purpose. In my opinion, on the passing of an award a/nd its approval by the competent officer the owner whose property is acquired has a legal right to demand the payment of compensation and the Authorities cannot refuse to pay the same except in a case of an inter se dispute in which cass also, the authority is required to deposit the amount in a Civil Court. No discretion, or power is conferred on the Special Deputy Commr to withhold payment of compensation or hold the amount in revenue deposit. The action of the Special deputy Commr is violative of Art. 31 of the Constn and Sec. 31 of the 1894 act and is manifestly illegal. No discretion, or power is conferred on the Special Deputy Commr to withhold payment of compensation or hold the amount in revenue deposit. The action of the Special deputy Commr is violative of Art. 31 of the Constn and Sec. 31 of the 1894 act and is manifestly illegal. Notwithstanding the same, Sri Annanda nayya Puranik, learned High Court Govt Advocate, contended that the condition imposed by the, Special Deputy Commr is a part and parcel of the award passed by the SLAO and if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the award, the remedy open to them is to seek for a reference to a civil Court under Sec. 18 of the 1894 Act which is an effective and an alternative remedy and therefore I should decline to exercise the extraordinary power conferred on this Court by Art. 226 of the Constn ( 7 ) IT is necessary to. remember that in these writ petitions, the petitioners are neither dissatisfied with the amount awarded by the SLAO nor is there any inter se dispute for payment of compensation awarded by the slao. Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act expressly confers the power on the SLAO to make an award. Proviso to Sec. 11 of the 1894 Act confers the power of approval on the Deputy Commr. An approval accorded by the Special deputy Commr or any condition imposed by the Special Deputy Commr, in my opinion, does not become a part of the award and therefore it is idle to contend that the petitioners should seek for a reference only against the illegal condition imposed by the Special Deputy Commissioner. ( 8 ) UNDER Sec. 18 of the 1894 Act a reference to Civil Court can be sought only when there is an objection to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable or the apportionment of compensation among the persons interested and not in respect of all matters. Sri Annandanayya Puranik learned High Court govt Advocate does not dispute that the petitioners' case does not attract any one of the four factors specified in sub-sec (1) of Sec. 18 of the 1894 act. I therefore hold that the is no merit in the contention of Sri Annandanayya Puranik learned HCG Advocate that the petitioners can ask for reference to a Civil Court. I therefore hold that the is no merit in the contention of Sri Annandanayya Puranik learned HCG Advocate that the petitioners can ask for reference to a Civil Court. ( 9 ) SRI Puranik contended that the order is an administrative order and the same is not open to correction by this Court under Art. 226 Of the constn. It is too late in the day to embark on an enquiry on the colntention of Sri Annandanayya Puranik. A High Court under Art. 226 of the constn has undoubted power to interfere; with an administrative order passed by the Special Deputy Commr functioning under the 1894 Act. I, therefore, reject this contention of Sri Annandanayya Puranik. ( 10 ) SRI Annandanayya Puranik contended that the order passed by the Special Deputy Commr to withhold payment and hold it in revenue deposit was only provisional or temporary in character and therefore this court's interference under Art. 226 of the Constn is not called for. As it is, the petitioners have been deprived of the amounts that are legally entitled to them from June, 1977. In case I accede to to this contention, of sri Annandanayya, Purapik, it is anybody's guess as to when the matters will be decided and whether the petitioners would receive the compensation amounts to which they are legitimately entitled to, during their life time. In my opinion, the concept that an order is provisional or temporary is wholly inapplicable to the direction issued by the| Special Deputy commr. I, therefore, reject this contention of Sri Annandnnayya Puranik. ( 11 ) SRI Annandanayya Puranik lastly contended that the possibility of the Govt withdrawing from the acquisition and dropping the acquisition proceedings, cannot be ruled out and therefore it would not be appropriate to direct the payment of compensation to the petitioners. Sri annandanayya Puranik does not say that the authorities have decided to withdraw from the acquisition and drop the acquisition proceedings and restore possession of the lands to the petitioners if not already taken. Sri annandanayya Puranik does not say that the authorities have decided to withdraw from the acquisition and drop the acquisition proceedings and restore possession of the lands to the petitioners if not already taken. So long as the Govt has not withdrawn from the acquisition and has not dropped the acquisition proceedings, there is a legal obligation on the govt to pay the compensation to the person from whom the property is acquired and the same cannot be indefinitely postpondent particularly when there has been a proper and legal determination of the amount to be paid under the 1894 Act. I, therefore, reject this; contention of Sri annandanaayya Puranik. ( 12 ) I have found that the authorities have illegally and unjustly withheld the payment of amounts legally and justly due to the petitioners who have lost their properties for an undoubted public purpose. When the petitioners approached this Court, this Court in the first instance, issued notices to the respondents as to why rule nisi should not be issued evidently with the object that the authorities would re-examine the matter and take immediate steps for payment of the amounts legitimately due to the petitioners without any loss of time. When the respondents did not take any such steps, this Court on 27-1-78 issued rule nisi and directed the writ petitions to be posted for hearing next week. I heard the cases in part on 14-6-78 and indicated the desirability of the Govt agreeing for the immediate payment of compensation. At the requeist of Sri Annandanayya puranik, I adjourned the closes to 16-6-78 on which day I again heard the arguments in full from which it is clear that the respondents are determined to withhold the payment of compensation legally and justly due to the petitioners. In my opinion, these circumstances of the cases call for award of exemplary costs. ( 13 ) IN the view I have taken, I hold that the condition imposed by the Special Deputy Commr to withhold the payment of compensation amount due to the petitioners and hold it in the revenue deposit is without jurisdiction and is illegal and is therefore quashed. ( 13 ) IN the view I have taken, I hold that the condition imposed by the Special Deputy Commr to withhold the payment of compensation amount due to the petitioners and hold it in the revenue deposit is without jurisdiction and is illegal and is therefore quashed. I further direct the issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to disburse the compention amounts awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to each of the petitioners as per his award passed in each case within 3 months from the date of receipt of the order [writ of this Court. ( 14 ) RULE made absolute. ( 15 ) PETITIONERS are entitled to their costs Advocate's fer Rs 250 in each writ petition. --- *** --- .