IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.270 OF 2012 BETWEEN The Land Acquisition Officer Cum Assistant Commissioner, Puttu, Dakshina Kannada.
(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Govt. Advocate) AND Ananda Gowda S/o. Guddappa Gowda, (since dead represented by His LRs) 1. Jayalakshmi, W/o. Late U.G.Anandagowda, Aged about 56 years, Ulvar House, Aranthodu Village and Post, Sullia Taluk-574239, Dakshina Kannada District.
2. U.Shivaprasada, S/o. Late U.G.Anandagowda, Aged about 38 years, Ulvar House, Aranthodu Village and Post, Sullia Taluk-574239, Dakshina Kannada District.
…Petitioner 3. A.S.Mohanangi, W/o. Sheshappa, D/o. Late U.G. Anandagowda, Aged about 37 years, R/o. Ambekkal, Sampaje Village, P.O.Goonadka, Sullia Taluk-574239, Dakshina Kannada District.
4. U.A.Chandrashekhar, S/o. Late U.G.Ananda Gowda, Aged about 34 years, Ulvar House, Aranthodu Village and Post, Sullia Taluk-574239, Dakshina Kannada District.
(By Sri. M.J. Alva, Advocate for R4, R1, R2 and R3 - served) …Respondents This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC, against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed in Misc. 02/2009 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, allowing the petition filed under Section 18(3)(6) of Land Acquisition Act.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for hearing, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Heard the learned Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent no.4. Respondent no.1 to 3 have been served with notice, but they have not entered appearance.
2. The Land Acquisition Officer being the petitioner has impugned the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Puttur in Misc.2/2009. The necessary facts are that Ananda Gowda, one of the sons of Guddappa Gowda made an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘ACT’) seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the court in connection with acquisition of 1 Acre of land in Sy.No.174/1B of Aranthodu village, Sulya Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. In connection with the said acquisition award had been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 26.09.1989. It is the case of Ananda Gowda that his father Guddappa Gowda had not been served with notice under Section 12(2) of the Act. This Ananda Gowda applied for certified copy of the award on 27.03.2008 and obtained it on 12.06.2008. Immediately he filed his statement of objections before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner, Puttur on 13.08.2008. He alleged that the Land Acquisition Officer, without verifying the facts of the case and without going into the merits of the case rejected his application on 6.11.2008 on the ground that the application was time barred. Thereafter he made an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act to the court.
3. The reference court after holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that the petitioner Ananda Gowda came to know about the award only on 12.06.2008 when he obtained certified copy of the award and therefore the application filed by him was within three months from that date. The trial court has assigned the reason that the entire evidence given by PW-1 has remained un-assailed. The Land Acquisition Officer failed to produce any document in support of his contention that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on Guddappa Gowda. Therefore in the absence of documentary evidence, the contention taken by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be accepted.
4. The Learned Government Advocate assailing the findings of the court below argues that in the statement of objections filed in the court below, it was clearly contended that the award amount was deposited in the court and since there was a dispute with regard to apportionment, the proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act was initiated. In the said proceedings, Guddappa Gowda participated. During the pendency of the proceedings he died and his legal representatives including Ananda Gowda were brought on record. Therefore the petitioner Ananda Gowda came to know about the award passed when he was impleaded in that proceedings in the year 1991 itself. The court below has not given any finding on this aspect of the matter. It has just come to conclusion that the entire evidence of PW-1 had not been impeached. Since there was clear knowledge that the award was passed, the petition filed in the year 2009 under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act was clearly time barred. The trial court has committed an error in allowing the petition filed under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 argues that from the date of knowledge i.e., from 12.06.2008, the petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act was made within three months. The court below has come a clear conclusion that the Land Acquisition Officer was not able to prove that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on Guddappa Gowda, the father of the petitioner Ananda Gowda. This shows that there was knowledge of award. The trial court’s conclusion that the petition was made within three months from the date of knowledge is in all respects proper and therefore this petition is to be dismissed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and perusing the impugned order, it is to be stated that the court below has not at all taken into consideration the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act though the same was contended in the objection statement filed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Assuming that evidence of PW-1 has not been impeached in the cross-examination, and that the Land Acquisition Officer did not produce a document with regard to service of notice on Guddappa Gowda under Section 12(2) of the Act, but it remains a fact that the Land Acquisition Officer initiated proceedings under Section 30 of the Act as there was a dispute with regard to apportionment of the compensation. In that proceedings, Guddappa Gowda, father of the petitioner a party, respondent no.1. He died during pendency of the proceeding and thereafter Ananda Gowda and other legal representatives of Guddappa Gowda were brought on record. It was in the year 1991. From this, it can be said that Ananda Gowda did come to know about the award in the year 1991 at least. Suppressing this, if he sought reference under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act in the year 2009, it can only be said that it was time barred. Rejection of the application by the Land Acquisition Officer was proper, but the conclusion arrived at by the court below that from the date of knowledge i.e., 12.06.2008, the application was made within 90 days cannot be up held. The court below has not applied its mind properly. It should not have entertained the petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore this revision petition is allowed. The order of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge in Misc.No.2/2009 is set aside. The petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act by the Land Acquisition Officer is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE sd