IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 21043 OF 2014 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD NO.1, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING 4TH FLOOR, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-01 REP BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M R C RAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI PRAKSH SHETTY S/O LATE S RAGHURAM BHANDARY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O KULLANJE VILLAGE HEBBADI, KANDAPURA TALUK U.D. C/O VIJAYA BANK HALADY BRANCH KUNDAPURA TALUK, U.D. – 576201.
2. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA (BY SRI. T MOHANDAS SHETTY FOR R1) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED SR.CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER 2013 VIDE ANN-A AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW & REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE SR.CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA LAC NO. 05/2008 TO DISPOSE OFF THE SAME AFRESH BY PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner, a beneficiary of the acquisition in question is against the judgment and award dated 25.09.2013 at Annexure-A made by learned Senior Civil Judge at Kundapura in land owner’s LAC No.5/2008 whereby the compensation has been enhanced in respect of land admeasuring 0.81 Acre in Sy.No.152/3 of Shankaranarayanapura Village from Rs.929 to Rs.5,500/- per cent.
2. After service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance. Land owner-respondent has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner banking upon the judgment dated 20.11.2018 made by this Court in W.P. No. 55485/2017 (LA – KIADB) and W.P. No. 11178/2016 (LA-RES) submits that the beneficiary of the acquisition is a necessary party for the proceedings under Section 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act,1894 wherein the land owner seeks enhancement of compensation inasmuch as, the enhanced part of the compensation is payable by the beneficiary only; the principle of natural justice requires that nobody will be put to prejudice without an opportunity of hearing and that the said opportunity is inbuilt under the provisions of Section 20 of Mysore Act 17 of 1961 and therefore the impugned judgment and award are bad, no such opportunity having been given.
4. He further submits that the fact matrix of this case is similar to the one in the cognate writ petitions referred to above and therefore, the relief granted to the litigants therein needs to be extended to the petitioner herein on the principle of parity, there being no repugnant circumstances. In the operation portion of aforesaid judgment, the text reads as under:
“In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned judgment and awards rendered by the Reference Court; the matter is remanded for consideration afresh within an outer limit of four months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiaries of acquisition. The parties are put on notice to appear before the jurisdictional Reference Court on 17.12.2018 and to seek instructions in the Reference Proceedings.”
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the petition papers and also the Statement of Objections. I have perused the decision cited at the Bar.
6. The Reference Court at the instance of the land owner who happens to be the first respondent herein has enhanced the compensation in multiples of the value fixed by the second respondent Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated 29.02.2008. The SLAO had awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.929/- per cent of land acquired; the Reference Court has enhanced the same to Rs.5,500/-. While enhancing the compensation, the petitioner who happens to be beneficiary of the acquisition has not been heard, in terms of Section 20(c) of Mysuru Act of 1961; this Court in the cognate judgment has held that, hearing of the beneficiary of the acquisition is a must and enhancing of the compensation sans hearing gets vitiated. The decision cited squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned judgment and award dated 25.09.2013 made by the Reference Court in LAC No.5/2008; the matter is remanded the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, at Kundapura, for consideration afresh, after hearing all the stakeholders, within a period of three months.
The parties are put on notice through their counsel to appear before the Reference Court on 15.03.2019 and they seek further instructions from the Presiding Officer of the Court.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv