N. Sridhar Reddy vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others

A.N. Vemugopala Gowda, J.—Land measuring 16 acres and 27 guntas in Sy. No. 21 of Konadasanapura Village was acquired under the provisions of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Claim statements having been filed by the Appellant and Respondents 2 to 26 and Ors. the 1stRespondent passed an award determining the compensation amount. Since names of several persons were found in the revenue records of the acquired land, the 1stRespondent made a reference to the Civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, for apportionment of the compensation amount. The compensation amount of Rs. 1,04,64,608/- was sent to the Civil Court, alongwith the order of reference dated 03.06.1997. The reference was registered in LAC 52/1997 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore. The claimants and the Respondent was notified. Claim statements were filed by some of the claimants.

The Appellant was 11th claimant in the reference and fifed a claim statement dated 23.01.1998, interalia contending that, he had purchased 4 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy. No. 21. of Konadasanapura Village under a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1983 executed by one Prabhudas and claimed compensation amount of Rs. 25,75,869/- A memo was filed to postpone the distribution of compensation amount till the disposal of Order Section 495/1995.

During the course of the enquiry, claimants deposed. Evidence of P Ws 1 -16 was recorded. Exs. P-1 to P-74 were marked. One K.N. Jayappa deposed as RW-1, through whom Exs. Rule-1 to Rule-3 were marked. The Civil Court after noticing that, the claims made by P Ws 1 to 11 would account to 17 acres 27 guntas, as against the acquired extent of 16 acres 27 guntas, there being, deficit of one acre and 7 guntas of land, while considering the case of Appellant, who deposed as PW-3, held as follows:

P.W. 3 - the claimant - Sridhar has not produced his vendor''s grant order through referred in his sale deed. Therefore, if at all the extent of land is to be deducted, that is to be deducted from his claim. Therefore, the deficit extent of land that is 1 acre 07 guntas is to be deducted out of 4 acres 04 guntas - to which the claimant -.P.W. 3 - N. Sridhar is claiming right and he should be given compensation in respect of the remaining extent of land.

(Underlining is by me)

While upholding the extent claimed by the claimants, except theAppellant/PW-3, the reference was allowed and the entitlement of the respective claimants was determined. The Appellant though claimed 4 acres 4 guntas of land, was held entitled to compensation amount to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of land i.e., less by one acre 7 guntas. Feeling aggrieved, the 11th claimant/PW-3 has filed this appeal.

Sri C.S. Prasanna Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that, the Reference Court has not correctly considered Ex. P-4, the sole deed of the Appellant''s vendor, which shows that he had purchased 4 acres 4 guntas of land on 11.05.1977 and hence the finding recorded that, the Appellant is entitled to compensation to an extent of 2 acres 37 guntas only is perverse and illegal. Learned Counsel submits that, the Civil Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and hence, interference in the matter is called for.

Sri K. Krishna, Learned Counsel appearing for the 1stRespondent, on the other hand submitted that, the total extent of land acquired in Sy. No. 21 of Konadasanapura Village was 16 acres 27 guntas only. The acquisition having become final, the Land Acquisition Officer made the award, determining the compensation payable and in view of names of several claimants and interested persons appearing in the revenue records, a reference was made to the Civil Court for apportionment under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and it is for the Civil Court to determine the rightful entitlement to the claimants and apportion the deposited compensation amount.

Sri v. Vijayashekara Gowda and Sri N. Nagendra, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, Rule 4 and Rule 14, submitted that, in pursuance of the impugned award, number of claimants have already drawn the compensation amount in terms of the apportionment order passed on 04.11.2008 and hence, the appeal is untenable.

This appeal was filed on 12.02.2009. On 19.06.2009, the appeal was admitted and stay of disbursement was ordered. The said interim order has not been modified till date.

The point for consideration is:

Whether the findings and conclusion of the Court below in the impugned judgment/award is perverse?

The claim made by the Appellant is for payment of Rs. 25,75,869/- out of the compensation amount deposited by the 1stRespondent by claiming that, his property measuring 4 acres 4 guntas in Sy. No. 21 of Konadasanapura Village was acquired. The Civil Court has held that, the PW-3 has proved that he has purchased 4 acres 4 guntas of land in the acquired Sy. No. 21 of Konadasanapura Village and therefore he is entitled for compensation to the land that was purchased by him. As against the said finding recorded, in Para 44(e) of the judgment, it has concluded that, the Appellant is entitled for compensation amount in respect of 2 acres 37 guntas i.e., less by one acre 7 guntas. The findings at Para 44(e) and conclusion at Para 76 are contradictory. The Civil Court has held that, the claimants are entitled for compensation to the extent of the land claimed by them, except the extent deducted in respect of the 11th claimant i.e., the Appellant. No cogent reasons have been assigned to reduce the compensation payable to the Appellant to the extent of one acre 7 guntas.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances. noticed supra, the record having not been considered in the correct perspective by the Civil Court, the findings and conclusion being contradictory, the impugned judgment/award is not sustainable.

In case, pursuant to the impugned award, compensation out of the deposited amount has been disbursed to any of the claimants, such disbursement shall be subject to the final outcome of the matter. The Court below can order restitution, as has been held in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and Others, .

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment/award is set-aside. The Court below is directed to re-determine the case keeping in view the observations made supra and in accordance with law.

The parties are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if any, In order to expedite the early hearing and decision of the case, the parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 20.08.2011.

However, the 1stRespondent shall make an application for service of notice on all the claimants by paper publication. On such application being filed, the Court below to pass an order, fixing the date of appearance of the parties and thereafter proceed further in the matter.

The Court below to decide the matter with utmost expedition and at any event, before 21.04.2012 in exercise of the power u/s 64 of Karnataka Courts Fees end Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the Registry is directed to refund to the Appellant the court fee paid on this appeal memorandum.

Parties to bear their respective costs.