Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd. vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprabha Project, Saundatti, now at Opp. Hindi Prachar Sabha, U.P. Hills, Dharwad and Sri Ravindra Kulkarni

B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition, the beneficiary of the acquisition of land- Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited is calling in question the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, in Civil Misc. No. 75/2007 dated 26.08.2009 vide Annexure-B. The said misc. petition was filed invoking Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2007 passed in LAC No. 109/2004 in so far as it pertained to awarding of interest with effect from the date of Section 4(1) notification. The land belonging to respondents No. 2 was acquired by issuing a preliminary notification invoking Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, ''the Act'') on 06.03.2003. This was followed by final notification. An award came to be passed on 31.03.2004 fixing the market value of the land at Rs. 48,000/- per acre along with admissible statutory benefits. The claimant sought, for reference to the Civil Court. On reference, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, enhanced the market value and fixed it at Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. He awarded, solatium at 30% on the enhanced market value along with 12% additional market value admissible u/s 23(1-A) from the date of Section 4(1) notification till the dace of the award. Interest was awarded at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of notification u/s 4(1) for one year and at 15% thereafter till the date of payment. The judgment in LAC by the reference was passed on 28.6.2007. The petitioner did not choose to prefer any appeal against the judgment However, an application for review of the judgment and decree was made contending inter ail that award of interest with effect from the date of issuance of Section 4(1) notification is illegal, as the same is not permissible under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, the order passed by the High Court in the case of Smt. Lingamma dead by L.Rs. and Others Vs. Gangadharaiah, Kamalamma and Shivalingamma, was relied upon to contend that the review was maintainable.

The reference Court has rejected the review petition holding that the review was not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and the impugned order passed by the Court below.

At the outset, it has to be stated that the petitioner had a remedy of preferring an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the reference Court as provided u/s 54 of the Act and as amended by the Karnataka Amendment. The said provision reads as under:

Appeals in proceedings before Court. Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court in. any proceedings under this Act to the Court authorised to hear appeals from the decision of that Court.

A further appeal is provided from any decree of a Court, other than the High Court, passed on an appeal under Sub-section (1) to the High Court, if the amount or the value of the subject-matter exceeds Rs. 2,000/-. or the case involves any question of title to land. Sub-section (3) provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any decree of the High Court passed on an appeal under sub-section (1).

It is thus clear that the petitioner ought to have availed the remedy of appeal, if it was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Reference Court. Even if the review petition is dismissed, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an appeal and not to approach this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction.

I am not persuaded to interfere in the matter for yet another reason, i.e., the petitioner which is a Corporation and a public undertaking has admittedly resorted to dispossess the land owner illegally without following the due process. There is no material to show that urgency clause was invoked as provided u/s 17 of the Act and possession of the lands were taken in accordance with law before passing the award. Therefore, if the public undertaking like that of the petitioner resorts to such illegal acts, it cannot be heard to say, in the writ jurisdiction of this Court, that the interest ordered to be paid from the date of Section 4(1) notification has to be set aside. This Court cannot ignore the conduct of the respondent Corporation in dispossessing the land owners illegally without following the due process and exercise the writ jurisdiction. The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to come to the aid of such an authority which has disregarded the rule of law and has resorted to depriving the land owners of their possession without taking recourse to the due procedure provided. In fact, as held by the Apex Court, in such situation, even if interest is not payable as provided under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the land owners are entitled to seek damages. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA and Others, makes this position clear. In that view of the. matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition as otherwise it will amount to providing premium to the petitioner who has resorted to illegal methods of depriving the land owner of his possession without adhering to the rule of law. Hence this writ, petition is dismissed. Learned Addl. Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance for respondent No. 1 within three weeks from today.