Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 226 (KAR)

SHARANAPPA HEBBAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-02-01

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2017
ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari quashing of the impugned endorsement dated 04.08.2015 vide Annexure-H, issued by the 6th respondent and Annexure-J, dated 25.07.2015 issued by the respondent No. 4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas of Hebbal village. The fifth respondent took possession of the land of the petitioner in the year 1958 for the purpose of construction of sub-canal No. 8 for the main canal of LBC Distributory No. 25. For taking possession of the land, a preliminary notification dated, 10.01.2008 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act'); and final notification dated, 29.10.2009 was published under Section 6(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.10.2010. The respondents have awarded the compensation, for which there is no dispute between the parties and the petitioner has received the award amount. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner preferred the petition under Section 18(1) of the Act, wherein the Civil Court enhanced the compensation and also the petitioner made an application for determination of the damages. The damages has to be calculated under Section 5 of the Act and also the payment of damages as fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. v. D.D.A. and others, reported in AIR 2004 SCW 1627, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for delayed payment of such amount, appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded. But the SLAO, who is also the Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Division, Koppal has calculated the same on 16.08.2014 and held that petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,69,828/-. In order to calculate, he has prepared the table of calculations since 1961 up to the date of passing of Section 4(1) notification. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, which has been calculated by the respondents. Once the calculation has been made, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, for which the Assistant Commissioner cannot turn back for modifications, which is adverse to the petitioner's interest. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, which has been calculated by the respondents. Once the calculation has been made, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount, for which the Assistant Commissioner cannot turn back for modifications, which is adverse to the petitioner's interest. Hence, this writ petition. 3. This Court by order, dated 19.01.2016 directed the respondents to calculate and pay the damages. Thereafter, the respondent SLAO has passed one more order, dated 21.01.2016 and recalculated the damages and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 21,83,991/-, which is contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice, since no opportunity was given by issuing notice. 4. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent has filed statement of objections and submits that after the order of this Court, dated 19.01.2016, the sixth respondent has brought to the notice of the SLAO about calculations and the fifth respondent has prepared the table of calculations since 1961 up to the date of passing notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The petitioner is entitled for lessor amount than the amount calculated by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-A. Hence, there is no justification to interfere with the order and the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as per Annexure-A and not as per Annexure-R1, dated 21.01.2016. 5. Learned Government Advocate submits that the table which was prepared by the SLAO is in accordance with law and the calculation has been made resulting in reduction, and reduction if any is made, it will be to the adverse interest of the petitioner, for which the petitioner ought to have been heard in the matter. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers. 7. The acquisition of land for the benefit of sixth respondent is not in dispute. The land was acquired in the year 1958 and Section 4(1) notification was issued in the year 2008. Accordingly, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.10.2010. The respondents have awarded the compensation, for which there is no dispute between the parties and the petitioner has received the award amount and also the petitioner has withdrawn the same. Accordingly, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.10.2010. The respondents have awarded the compensation, for which there is no dispute between the parties and the petitioner has received the award amount and also the petitioner has withdrawn the same. It is disputed that the subsequent calculation made as per Annexure-R1, dated 21.01.2016, which reduces the damages, which is contrary to Annexure-A for which the petitioner is entitled for issuance of notice before passing reduction order. No doubt, under Section 13-A of the Act, before modification of the award, the petitioner must be heard in the matter by issuing notice. As per Annexure-A, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and as per his calculations, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 40,69,828/-. The sixth respondent who is the beneficiary has to pay the amount or has to bring it to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner, in case of error in calculation. The said error has been exonerated by the Assistant Commissioner and found that the petitioner has to be paid as per Annexure-R1 i.e., a sum of Rs. 21,83,991/-. 8. Be that as it may, before preparing Annexure-R1, it should have been brought to the notice of the petitioner about the reduction of damages. The SLAO, who is statutory authority under the Land Acquisition Act has passed an order for the purpose of Section 5 of the Act. When that order has been modified by reducing the compensation, it is contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner by issuing notice. Hence, the same requires to be set aside in order to enable the Assistant Commissioner to pass fresh orders after issuance of notice to the petitioner. Both the parties are directed to appear before the SLAO on 15.02.2017 without awaiting notice, in this regard. The petitioner has also withdrawn a sum of Rs. 21,83,991/- and the remaining amount if any, shall be disbursed after passing of the order by the Assistant Commissioner. 9. Learned Government Advocate is directed to communicate this order to the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner is directed not to engage himself in some other work on that day. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.