IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI M.S.A. No.45 OF 2014 BETWEEN :
Ramaiah, S/o.Rangaiah, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Haropura Village, Biliker Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mandya District – 571 301. ... Appellant (By Sri P.Mahesha, Advocate) AND:
1. The Assistant Commissioner and The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mysore Division, Mysore – 570 001.
2. The Executive Engineer, Kabini Reservior Division, Kaveri Neeravari Nigama, T.Narasipura – 571 124, Mysore. …Respondents (By Smt.M.Geetha, GP for R1: Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, Advocate for R2) This appeal is filed under Section 54(2) of L.A. Act against the judgment and award, dated 16.03.2013, passed on LACA No.38/2012, on the file of the C/C VI Addl. District Judge, Mysore, allowing the appeal filed against the judgment and award dated 12.07.2011 passed in LAC 8/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nanjanagudu, allowing the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
This appeal, coming on for admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the judgment, dated 16.03.2013 passed by the I Appellate Court (Court of VI Addl. District Judge, Mysore) in L.A.C. Appeal No.38/2012.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the lands in question measuring 31 guntas standing at Sy.No.53/2 of Haropura Village, Biligere Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk were acquired for the purpose of shifting the village. In that regard, the preliminary notification was issued on 22.07.1995. The first respondent Assistant Commissioner and the Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘SLAO’ for short) passed the award on 20.10.1996 fixing the market value of the land at Rs.20,183/- per acre. The Reference Court raised it to Rs.1,85,622/- per acre. The District Judge set aside the Reference Court’s award on the ground that the reference is barred by limitation.
3. Sri P.Mahesha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was served on the claimant on 20.01.1997 and that the claimant filed the reference application on 27.02.1997. As the SLAO did not send the reference, the claimant was constrained to file Section 18(3)(b) application and that the said application was registered as L.A.C.No.105/1999, which was allowed by the Reference Court by its order, dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure-A). By the said order the SLAO was directed to send the reference of the claimant. Without noticing this, the District Court has found fault with the claimant. He submits that the District judge has observed that there is a lapse of 13 years in seeking the reference. This delay is not at all attributed to the claimant, so submits the learned counsel.
4. He submits that neither in L.A.C.No.105/1999 nor in LAC No.8/2010 nor in LAC Appeal No.38/2012, the respondents have ever taken the contention that the reference is barred by limitation.
5. Smt.M.Geetha, learned Government Pleader submits that the claimant has not produced any proof to show that he has ever filed Section 18(3)(b) application and that the order for reference was passed thereon.
6. Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also makes the submissions akin to those of the learned Government Pleader.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. I have browsed through the lower court records in L.A.C.No.8/2010. The SLAO and the Kaveri Neeravari Nigama have not entered the witness box. They have cross-examined the claimant but only on the aspect of market value. Not even a question or suggestion is put to the claimant to indicate that they have raised the point of limitation. That is why the Reference Court has not framed any point regarding limitation.
8. The perusal of the grounds of appeal, raised by the SLAO as culled out in the District Judge’s judgment, reveals that no contention that the reference is barred by limitation was ever taken by the SLAO. That is why the District Judge has also not formulated any point regarding the limitation. But the District Judge has proceeded to set aside the Reference Court’s award holding that the reference is barred by limitation. The claimant is taken by surprise. If the limitation point were to be formulated, the claimant would have met the same.
9. The finding that the reference is barred by limitation is also not sustainable. The appellant has produced the certified copy of the order, dated 30.06.2008 (Annexure-A) passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C.No.105/1999. The perusal of the said order clearly shows that the claimant has filed the reference application within the prescribed period of 90 days. The award notice was served on the claimant on 02.01.1997 and Section 18 application was filed on 27.02.1997. On account of the failure of the SLAO to send the reference, the claimant was driven to file the application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. (Mysore Extension and Amendment Act 17/1961). The said application was allowed requiring the SLAO to send the reference.
10. The SLAO’s covering letter, dated 03.02.2010 with which the reference was submitted also refers to the Reference Court’s order, dated 30.06.2008 in LAC No.105/1999.
11. On considering all the materials on record, I cannot but hold that the District Court’s order is erroneous and is therefore liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. Consequently the judgment passed by the Reference Court stands restored. As the appellant has suffered erroneous order of the District Judge for no fault on his part, it is made clear that he is entitled to the cost of this litigation.
12. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-