Allowed

Smt Susheeladevi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024CRP/112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dismissing a reference application for enhanced land acquisition compensation. The Court held that since the petitioner was absent at the award, the six-month period from the award date applied. Being within that limit, the lower court erred in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the reference petition is set aside, and the Reference Court is directed to dispose of the matter on merits within four months.

Smt Susheeladevi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34808 CRP No. 112 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 112 OF 2021 (LAC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SUSHEELADEVI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O SRI V. ASHWATHNARAYANA REPRESENTED BY SPA HOLDER SRI V ASHWATHNARAYANA.

¶8

SRI V. ASHWATHNARAYAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O SRI VENKATAPPA

¶9

BOTH RESIDING AT NO.14/38/1, 19^TH MAIN 13^TH CROSS PADMANABHANAGAR BANGALORE-560070.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. S RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHNAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.12.2020 PASSED IN LAC.NO.54/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 64(1) PROVISO 2 OF RIGHT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:34808 CRP No. 112 of 2021

¶20

TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RE SETTLEMENT ACT 2013.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Reference Court, which dismissed the reference filed by the petitioner under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶25

The petitioner’s lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and upon the commencement of the 2013 Act, the Collector passed an award on 30.06.2014 under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner accepted the compensation determined under the award, which was passed on 17.11.2014, and received the compensation on 15.01.2016. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 64(2)(b) of the 2013 Act with the Collector, requesting that the matter be referred to the Reference Court for enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court rejected the application on the grounds that it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit, referring to Proviso II of Section 64(1) of the 2013 Act. Hence, this petition.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:34808 CRP No. 112 of 2021

¶28

The petitioner contends that they were not present when the award was passed by the Collector, and although the award was passed on 30.06.2014, it was only communicated to the petitioner on 18.10.2014. Therefore, the Reference Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application, as provided under Proviso II to Section 64(2)(b) of the 2013 Act.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argues that the Reference Court, having considered that the application was filed after the stipulated period, has rightly passed the impugned order, and no interference is warranted.

¶30

After carefully examining the submissions made by both parties, the key issue that arises for consideration is whether the reference application filed by the petitioner was submitted beyond the time stipulated under Proviso II to Section 64(1) of the 2013 Act.

¶31

The award was passed on 30.06.2014, and the petitioner was not present before the Collector on that date. The Reference Court erroneously assumed that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry before the Collector under Section 23 of the 2013 Act, but there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the petitioner was present on the date the award was passed. The findings of the Reference Court are contrary to the evidence on record.

¶32

The award was passed on 30.06.2014 and communicated to the petitioner on 18.10.2014. Consequently, the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:34808 CRP No. 112 of 2021

¶35

petitioner was required to file a reference application within six weeks from the date of communication of the award or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period expires first.

¶36

In this case, the award was passed on 30.06.2014 and communicated to the petitioner on 17.11.2014, in accordance with Section 37(2) of the 2013 Act. The award was further communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 18.10.2014, issued under Section 2(37) of the 2013 Act.

¶37

Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, deals with references to the Authority. It states that any person who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, request that the matter be referred to the appropriate Authority for determination on issues such as the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, rights of rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapters V and VI, or the apportionment of compensation among the interested parties. The Collector must make such a reference within 30 days of receiving the application.

¶38

Section 64(2) of the 2013 Act states that the application must outline the grounds for objection to the award. If the person was present or represented before the Collector when the award was made, the application must be filed within six weeks of the award.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:34808 CRP No. 112 of 2021

¶41

Clause (b) of Section 64(2) of the 2013 Act states that in other cases, the application must be filed within six weeks of receiving notice from the Collector or within six months of the Collector’s award, whichever period expires first.

¶42

A careful reading of these provisions indicates that a reference application must be filed within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award, if the applicant was present at the time the award was passed, or within six weeks of notice under Section 21, or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period expires first.

¶43

In the present case, the petitioner was informed of the award on 18.10.2014, as per Section 37(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶44

Since no notice was issued under Section 21 of the 2013 Act, the petitioner was required to file the reference application within six months of the date of the Collector’s award. The petitioner filed the reference application on 13.04.2016, which was well within the six-month time limit. The reference application was, therefore, filed within the time stipulated under Clause (b) of Section 64(2) of the 2013 Act.

¶45

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the II Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17), is legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:34808 CRP No. 112 of 2021

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The impugned order 23.12.2020 passed by the II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, at Bangalore (CCH-17) in Land Acquisition Case No.54/2016 is hereby set aside.

¶51

iii) The Trial Court/Reference Court to dispose of the LAC No.54/2016 on merits in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶54

Smt Susheeladevi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Susheeladevi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Deepak Raj Vs Axis Bank Ltd.

Manjunath M R, Vs the Manager

M/S Shri Veerabhadreshwar Agency Inamdyamanakoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Basarur Mohiddin Saheb Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

Sri Mahendra Kumar Vs Sri L Ravindra

Sri. Nagesh Vs Karnataka State Primary School Teachers Association