Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 964 (KAR)

Dharamgouda v. Spl. Lao. Reanebennur

2013-08-21

A.N.VENUGOPALA GOWDA

body2013
Judgment 1. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land measuring 10 guntas in R.S. No.125/2, Shiragambi village, Hirekerur Taluk. State of Karnataka, acquired 24 guntas of land in R.S.125/2, Shiragambi Village, for the formation of Upper Tunga Irrigation Canal project, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). The 1st respondent passed an Award dated 20.04.2004, in the name of the 2nd respondent. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the 2nd respondent sought for a reference by the 1st respondent to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of the acquired property. The 1st respondent having made a reference under S.18 of the Act, the same was registered as LAC No.360/2011, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Hirekerur. 2. In LAC 360/2011, the petitioners filed I.A.I, under 01 RIO (2) read with 151 CPC, for getting themselves impleaded as claimant Nos.2 to 4, by stating that, out of the acquired property, only 14 guntas belonged to the claimant-Shivapna Kariyappa Taiawar and the remaining 10 guntas belonged to them and that the SLAO due to oversight, wrongly passed the Award in respect of the entire 24 guntas of land, in favour of the Shivappa Kariyappa Taiawar. They stated, that on account of the understanding reached between themselves and the said claimant, compensation amount in respect of 14 guntas was paid to Shivappa Kariyappa Taiawar and the remaining amount was paid to them. Having come to know that Shivappa Kariyappa Taiawar submitted the reference application in respect of the entire 24 guntas of land and the reference was made, petitioners filed I.A.I and sought impleading. The claimant having opposed I.A.I, finding that the reference made being under S.18 of the Act and the applicants, if have received any portion of compensation, having not sought: reference under S.18 of the Act and in view of the denial of the claim of the applicants by the claimant-Shivappa Kariyappa Talwar, the learned Judge being of the view that the applicants have to establish their right and interest: in a separate proceeding before competent court by initiating appropriate proceedings and such course of action being not permissible in the reference made under S.18 of the Act, I.A.I was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed this writ petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed this writ petition. 3. Sri S.G. Kadadakatti, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that, although in the proceedings under S.18 of the Act, apportionment of the amount of compensation is not the subject matter, it is necessary that the reference be determined in the presence of the petitioners and thus, the petitioners are proper parties to the reference proceedings and that the reference Court has committed serious error in passing the impugned order. 4. Sri K.S. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for respondent No.1, on the other hand contended that the reference by respondent No.1 to the Civil Court having been made in terms of S.18 of the Act and not in terms of S.30 thereof, I.A.I for impleadment being not maintainable, the reference Court is justified in passing the impugned order. 5. Perused the writ record, The Act is a self- contained Code. 1st respondent passed the Award dated 20.04.2004 in respect of 24 guntas of land in R.S.125/2 of Shiragambi village, in the name of the 2nd respondent, who being dissatisfied with the compensation offered, sought reference to the Civil Court for determination of the market value and accordingly, reference under S.18 of the Act was made. 6. At the behest of a person interested, a reference can be made to the Civil Court. To be a person interested, he should be a party to the proceedings of making the Award and an application for making the reference, should be made to the authority, which passed the Award, within the time specified. An application seeking reference to the Civil Court can be, as regards measurement of the acquired land, the amount of compensation, the apportionment amongst the persons interested. 7. 2nd respondent was a party to the proceedings of making the Award by the 1st respondent. After the Award was made, 2nd respondent submitted an application and sought reference to the Civil Court, for determination of the market value i.e., the amount of compensation payable. Based on the said application, 1st respondent made the reference under S.18, to the Civil Court, in respect of the amount of compensation only. No reference was made under S.30 of the Act, in regard to the right of persons to whom compensation was payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. 8. Based on the said application, 1st respondent made the reference under S.18, to the Civil Court, in respect of the amount of compensation only. No reference was made under S.30 of the Act, in regard to the right of persons to whom compensation was payable or the apportionment of the compensation amongst the persons interested. 8. The petitioners by filing IA 1, laid claim to 10 guntas of the acquired land and such a claim is not tenable, in a reference made under S.18 of the Act, as the reference Court, which has no original jurisdiction to decide the inter-se claims of the parties. The reference Court derives jurisdiction only in terms of the order of reference. The matter to be decided in the pending reference i.e. LAC No. 360/2011 is only the quantum of compensation. 9. In the case of a dispute with regard to the title or apportionment of the amount of compensation, reference should be made under 3.30 of the Act. Only when such a reference is made, the dispute between the claimants can be gone into and decided, but not when the reference is only under S.18 of the Act. 10. In the case of AMBEY DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR, (1996) 9 SCC 84 , Apex Court has held that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC have no application in a land acquisition proceedings, which becomes clear from the following: "The procedure prescribed under S.18 and 30 is inconsistent with the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC. Order 1 Rule 10, CPC would apply to implead a necessary or proper party to effectuate complete adjudication of all the disputes having arisen between all the necessary or proper parties who may be bound by the decision. That question does not arise since inconsistent procedure has been prescribed under the Act. As held earlier, making an application in writing under sub section (1) and within the limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 18 are conditions precedent for the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference under Section 18; only on its receipt, under Section 20 the civil court gets jurisdiction to issue notice and thereafter to conduct enquiry, as contemplated under the Act." 11. In the said view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity, warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, writ petition being devoid of merit is rejected. However, it is made clear that the impugned order would not come in the way of the petitioners instituting a suit against the 2nd respondent, for appropriate reliefs. No costs.