Allowed

Dyamanagouda S/O Hanumagouda Police Patil v. the Land Acquisition Officer and

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2019WA/100400/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this land acquisition appeal, the High Court held that a reference court cannot reject a reference for enhancement of compensation merely because the reference order was received belatedly, provided the reference application was made and signed within the statutory limitation period.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the reference Court and the Single Judge judgment are quashed. The reference Court is directed to decide the reference on merits expeditiously.

Dyamanagouda S/O Hanumagouda Police Patil Vs the Land… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.G.M. PATIL

¶7

W.A.NO.100400/2018 (LA-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DYAMANAGOUDA S/O HANUMAGOUDA POLICE PATIL AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHIMANORE VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583201.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2018 PASSED IN W.P.NO.104400/2016 (LA-RES)

¶18

¶19

BY THE SINGLE JUDGE AND THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO REMAND THE MATTER BEFORE JURISDICTIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL IN LAC NO.220/2014, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appeal is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.

¶23

In this intra Court appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 29.05.2018 passed in

¶24

W.P.No.104400/2016 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶25

The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that, the appellant is

¶26

the owner of the land measuring 2 acres. The aforesaid land was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the

¶27

¶28

‘Act’) and an award was passed on 19.02.2010. Thereafter a notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the appellant on 16.10.2010. The appellant admittedly within the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Act made an application before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act seeking a reference to the Court for enhancement of the amount of compensation on 15.11.2010. The Deputy Commissioner signed the order of reference on 03.02.2014. Admittedly the period of limitation i.e. three years ninety days expired on 15.02.2014. The reference Court however refused to entertain the reference on the ground that the same has been received belatedly in the Court on 04.03.2014 and 05.03.2014. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge has dismissed the petition

¶29

¶30

inter alia, on the ground that the record was received belatedly in the Court on 04.03.2014 and 05.03.2014 i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation on 15.02.2014. Learned single Judge has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V/s Laxuman reported in (2005) 8 SCC 709. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant while inviting attention of this Court to the amendment made in Section 18(3) of the Act in the State of Karnataka has pointed out that the reference is required to be made within a period of limitation and admittedly reference in the instant case has been made within the period of limitation, which has not been disputed even by respondents. Therefore, impugned order rejecting the reference of the petitioner-appellant on the

¶32

¶33

ground that the record of the order of reference was received belatedly in the Court, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The decision relied upon by the learned single Judge has no application of the facts situation of the case. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that since the record was received beyond the period of limitation and in view of the law laid down in the State of Karnataka (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

¶34

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and learned HCGP and also perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is opposite to take note of Section 18(3) as amended in the State of Karnataka , which reads as under:

¶35

¶36

“(3) (a) The Deputy Commissioner shall, within ninety days from the date of receipt of an application under subsection (1), make a reference to the Court;

¶37

(b) if the Deputy Commissioner does not make a reference to the Court within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the application, the applicant may apply to the Court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference, and the court may direct the Deputy Commissioner to make the reference within such time as the Court may fix.”

¶38

Admittedly in the instant case, the application seeking reference to the Deputy Commissioner was made by the appellant within the period of limitation i.e. on 15.11.2010. It is also not in dispute that the order of the reference was signed by the Deputy

¶39

Commissioner on 03.02.2014 i.e. well before the

¶40

¶41

expiry of period of limitation. The limitation expired on 15.02.2014. Thereafter, the letter of reference was received in the Court on 04.03.2014 and 05.03.2014. From close scrutiny of Section 18(3) as applicable in the State of Karnataka , it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner is under a statutory obligation to make reference within the time limit prescribed therein. Admittedly the Deputy Commissioner has made an order of reference within the period of limitation. Therefore, the reference sought for by the appellant could not have been rejected on the ground that the records have been received belatedly after the period of limitation.

¶42

We have carefully gone through the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka (supra). After going through the same in our considered

¶43

¶44

opinion, the same has no application to the facts situation of the case.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the

¶46

impugned order passed by the learned single Judge as well as the reference Court dated 01.08.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The reference Court is directed to decide the reference of the appellant on merits expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶47

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

CLK

Dyamanagouda S/O Hanumagouda Police Patil v. the Land Acquisition Officer and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dyamanagouda S/O Hanumagouda Police Patil v. the Land Acquisition Officer and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Birappa S/O Vithoba Bhanuse Vs the State of Karnataka

Girish S/O Basavanappa Hurukadalli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Anand Rao S/O Shamsundar Rao Desai Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.S.M.Satisha Babu S/O Shivanandaswamyi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Medha D/O Janardhan Jaiwant Vs the State of Karnataka

Basappa S/O Husanappa Talawar Vs State of Karnataka