The High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench held that appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer challenging the compensation award enhanced by the Reference Court were not maintainable. Only the beneficiary is the aggrieved person.
Appeals dismissed as not maintainable; pending interlocutory applications dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102099/2018 (LAC)
C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOS.102103/2018,
102100/2018, 102102/2018 & 102104/2018 (LAC)
MFA NO.102099 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSINOER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI PIN CODE: 591102.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)
AND:
2
(BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. G. I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.120/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- PER ACRE.
MFA NO. 102103 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSINOER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI PIN CODE: 591102.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
3
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.124/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- PER ACRE.
MFA NO.102100 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSINOER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, TQ: BAILHONGAL, PIN CODE: 591102.
... APPELANT
(BY SRI. R. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.121/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- PER ACRE.
4
MFA NO.102102 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, TQ: BAILHONGAL, PIN CODE: 591102.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.123/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- PER ACRE.
5
MFA NO. 102104 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSINOER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI PIN CODE: 591102. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP)
AND:
(BY SRI. K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.127/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.10,00,000/- PER ACRE.
6
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the State Government against the judgment and award dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’ for short), in LAC Nos.120, 124, 121, 123 and 127 of 2013, by urging various grounds for reduction of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
7
Rs.700,000/- per acre to the land losers and reference has been made to the Reference Court and Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,00,000/per acre along with all statutory benefits. The Land Acquisition Officer, who has passed the award, filed these appeals challenging the award passed by the Reference Court.
respondents/claimants vehemently contended that, the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired could be the aggrieved person for challenging the award, but
not the Land Acquisition Officer who had passed the award prior to Reference. In support of his arguments, learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in MFA No.101928/2014 in the case of
State of Karnataka, Reptd by Secretary to Govt. and others Vs. Sri. Shivappa Goolappa and
another , disposed of on 17.07.2015.
8
4. Perused the judgment of this Court in MFA
No.101928/2014. Para 3 of the said judgment reads as follows:
“3. The Land Acquisition Officer who has passed the award has no right to challenge the judgment and award passed by the reference Court. It is only the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired could be the aggrieved person and not land acquisition officer in the present appeal. My view is fortified by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer V. Dilip Kumar and others reported in AIR 2011 KAR 820. In view of the same, the appeal filed by the State Government is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the 2nd respondent who is a beneficiary to file an appeal, if he so desires in accordance with law.”
5. Admittedly, the appellant – Land Acquisition
Officer, had acquired the land for the benefit of the
9
respondent-KUWSDB. Therefore, once the land is acquired by the acquiring body for the benefit of respondent-KUWSDB, who is the beneficiary, the acquiring body cannot challenge the award passed by the Reference Court. Therefore, these appeals filed by acquiring body are not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-beneficiary to file the appeal, if they so desire in accordance with law.
Therefore, the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.
In view of disposal of these appeals, all pending I.A.s are dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
gab
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer who passed the award prior to reference has the right to challenge the award passed by the Reference Court.
Whether the beneficiary for whose benefit the land is acquired is the only aggrieved person capable of challenging the award.
Whether appeals filed by the State Government challenging the enhanced compensation are maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Karnataka, Reptd by Secretary to Govt. and others Vs. Sri. Shivappa Goolappa and anotherReferred¶79
State of Karnataka, Reptd by Secretary to Govt. and others Vs. Sri. Shivappa Goolappa and another
Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer V. Dilip Kumar and othersRelied on¶85
AIR 2011 KAR 820 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DIVISION OFFICE, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD
THE COMMISSIONER HDMC, HUBBALLI
MAHAMMAD IQBAL S/O MAHEBOOBSAB HONGAL
AKSHAY S/O VISHWANATH HAMPANNAVAR
SMT.TARA @ SUNANDA W/O DATTATREYA RAJAPUROHIT
K. NATARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
