Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1081 (KAR)

Mariyamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

2013-09-11

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. In this case, petitioner has challenged the validity of the order in LA Mis.No.31/2006 dated 21.03.2013, whereby the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Srirangapatna has rejected her application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.39 measuring 2 acres 39 guntas situated at Pura Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District. The said land was acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short ‘the Board’) for the establishment of an industrial area. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation at Rs.6,50,000/-per acre. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that she has not consented for determining the compensation by agreement at Rs.6,50,000/-. She has not signed any agreement in this regard. Therefore, she made an application before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) for referring the matt to the Civil Court for determination of higher compensation. Since the application was not referred, she filed an application at Annexure-E, under Section 18(3)(b) seeking a direction to the first respondent – Land Acquisition Officer to refer her application to the Court. 4. The application was allowed on 02.02.2010 and the first respondent was directed to refer the application filed under Section 18(1) to the Court for adjudication. Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent filed a writ petition in WP.No.41166/2010. This Court by order dated 19.01.2012 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order and directed the Court to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Civil Court has taken up the application for consideration. The parties have let in evidence. On appreciation of the materials on record, the court below has rejected the application by order dated 21.03.2013. 5. Sri. Abhijeet, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not agreed for determining the compensation under Section 29(2) of The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short ‘KIAD Act’). Therefore, her application seeking higher compensation ought to have been referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. It is argued that the determination of compensation by the first respondent in a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre is inadequate. She is also entitled for other statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Per contra, Sri. Therefore, her application seeking higher compensation ought to have been referred to the Civil Court for adjudication. It is argued that the determination of compensation by the first respondent in a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- per acre is inadequate. She is also entitled for other statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. Per contra, Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has agreed for determining the compensation by consent under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act. Accordingly an agreement was entered into between the partied at Annexrue-R1 determining the compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre, After entering into an agreement at Annexure-R1, she has executed an indemnity bond as per Annexure-R2, agreeing to receive the compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. She has also undertaken to refund the amount if any dispute arises with regard to her title to the property. It is argued that since the compensation has been determined by consent under Section 29(2), no award has been passed. Therefore, the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act or under 18 (3)(b) are not maintainable. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the benefit of the Board for the formation of an industrial area. The contention of the petitioner is that the first respondent has determined the compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre without her consent. She has accepted the compensation under protest. Therefore, the application filed by her under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is maintainable. Since the first respondent failed to refer the application to the Civil Court, she made an application under Section 18(3)(b) for a direction to make reference to the Court for adjudication. 9. It is clear from the materials on record that the petitioner has entered into an agreement as per Annexure-R1 with the first respondent agreeing to receive compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre without any demur. This was also followed by execution of an indemnity bond at Annexure-R2. The different clauses contained in this bond shows that she has agreed to receive the amount at the aforesaid rate in full and final settlement of the compensation and that she will not seek higher compensation. This was also followed by execution of an indemnity bond at Annexure-R2. The different clauses contained in this bond shows that she has agreed to receive the amount at the aforesaid rate in full and final settlement of the compensation and that she will not seek higher compensation. 10. Section 28 of the KIAD Act lays down the procedure for acquisition of the land. Section 29 provides for the procedure for payment of compensation. Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act states that where the amount of compensation has been determined by an agreement between the State Government and the person to be compensated, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. This provision is different from Section 11 (2) of the LA Act. Under section 11(2) of the LA Act, the Land Acquisition Officer has to pass a consent award. Section 29(2) of KIAD Act does not contemplate passing of a consent award. The compensation can be determined by agreement. Once the compensation is determined under this provision, it shall be paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 11. Section 30 of the KIAD Act states that the provision of the Land Acquisition Act shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of enquiry and award by the Deputy Commissioner for the reference to Court and apportionment of compensation and the payment of compensation in respect of the lands acquired in Chapter VII of the KIAD Act. 12. Section 18(1) of the LA Act provides for reference to the Court. It states that any person interested who has not accepted the award made by written application to the Deputy Commissioner requires that the matter be referred to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the Court whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or apportionment of the compensation amongst the person interested. 13. Section 18(3)(b) of LA Act states that if the Deputy Commissioner does not make a reference to the Court within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the Court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make reference and the Court may direct the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within such time as the Court may fix. 14. 14. It is clear that for seeking reference under Section 18(1) of the LA Act, an award has to be passed. If the compensation is determined under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act, by agreement, question of seeking reference does not arise as no award has been made. If no award is passed, and application under section 18(1) or under Section 18(3) (b) of the LA Act are not maintainable. In a similar case in SRI T. BUCHAPPA & OTHERS VS. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & Another – (CRP Nos.2670/1990 and other connected matters disposed of on 14.8.1991) this Court has held as under: “4. Now it is necessary to examine the scheme of the provisions of the Act in question. The scheme of the provisions thereof would indicate compensation could be determined either by agreement or by award. Agreement could be entered into between the party and the State as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 29. If no such agreement is entered into then there would be necessity to pass the award after due enquiry into the matter. In the present case, the stage of passing the award does not arise if the agreement entered is acted upon. I fail to understand how the matter can be referred to a Civil Court where there has been an agreement. Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which becomes applicable by virtue of Section 30 of the Act makes it clear that it is only person interested who has not accepted the award can seek for reference and not any other person. If there is no award, the question of acceptance of the award does not arise. Hence, I think the view taken by the trial Court appears to be correct. Whether the grievance of the petitioners is genuine or not cannot be determined in these proceedings. That could be agitated in an appropriate proceeding and forum.” 15. Some times a consent award may be passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act even though the acquisition is under the KIAD Act having regard to Section 30 of KIAD Act. Needless to say that an application under Section 18(1) of the LA Act or 18(3)(b) is also not maintainable when a consent award is passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act. (See STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER VS. Needless to say that an application under Section 18(1) of the LA Act or 18(3)(b) is also not maintainable when a consent award is passed under Section 11(2) of the LA Act. (See STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER VS. SANGAPPA DYAVAPPA BIRADAR & OTHERS – 2005 AIR SCW 1775) 16. In the instant case, it is clear that the petitioner has agreed to receive the compensation at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre by agreement. As such, no award was passed by the first respondent. The petitioner in her evidence has admitted that she has agreed to receive the compensation by consent at Rs.6,50,000/- per acre. In the circumstances, her application under Section 18(1) is not maintainable. Consequently, her application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act is also not maintainable. I find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.