The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee vs Sri Siddaiah

H.G. Ramesh, J.—These two appears are by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Belur and are directed against the common judgment and award dtd. 22.08.2011 passed by the Reference Court, namely the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Belur in LAC. Nos.8 & 7 of 2009.By the impugned awards, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the lands acquired at Rs. 37/- per sq. ft. and the claimants are held entitled to all the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sri Sangamesh G. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.2 - State in both the appeals.

The delay of 63 days in filling the appeal in MFA.No.1156/2C12 is condoned; permission to prosecute the appeal is also granted, I.A.Nos.1 8 3 of 2012 are accordingly disposed of.

By consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the appeals are heard on merits and are being disposed of by this judgment.

The sole contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the impugned judgment and the awards are vitiated for non compliance of Sec. 20(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''the Act'' for short), as amended in Karnataka. It is relevant to refer to Sec. 20 of the Act as amended in Karnataka which reads as follows:

Service of notice. - The Court shall thereupon cause a notice specifying the day on which the court will proceed to determine the objection, and directing their appearance before the Court on that day; to be served on the following persons, namely :

(a) the Deputy Commissioner;

(b) all persons interested in the reference; and

(c) if the acquisition is not made for Government, the person or authority for whom it is made.

Admittedly, the Reference Court did not issue notice, as mandated under clause (c) of appellant - APMC for whose benefit the lands were acquired, before proceeding to determine the reference. The appellant was thus deprived of an opportunity to place its case before the Court. The impugned judgment is accordingly vitiated for non compliance of Section 20(c) of the Act. This is also the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Neelagangabai and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, & in NGEF LTD. vs. STATE OF MYSORE 1980 (2) KU SHORT NOTES OF CASES 87 (page 27). In view of the above, the impugned judgment and the awards are liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Reference Court. Accordingly, I make the following order:

(i) the impugned judgment and the awards viz the awards in LAC.Nos.8 & 7 of 2009 are set aside; the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for reconsideration in accordance with law;

(ii) the appellant is at liberty to adduce the evidence in support of its case, but strictly within the time to be granted by the Reference Court;

(iii) the claimants are at liberty to adduce additional evidence, if they are so advised, but within the time to be granted by the Reference Court;

(iv) the Reference Court is directed to dispose of the proceeding expeditiously and in any event within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order;

(v) in view of remand of the matter, the appellant is entitled for refund of the entire court fee paid on the memorandum of appeals as per Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act; 1958.

The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. In view of disposal! of the appeals, I.A.No.2/2012 filed in MFA.No_1154/2012 and I.A.No.2 of 2012 filed in MFA No.1156/2012 do not survive for consideration; they stand disposed of accordingly.

Appeals disposed of.