The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Almatti vs Gurappa Mannikeri <BR> Gurappa Mannikeri Vs The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, UKP, Project, Almatti, Dist. Bijapur

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—These three Miscellaneous First Appeals filed u/s 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are directed against

the common judgment dated 04.02.2003 rendered in LAC Nos. 671/1997, 672/1997 & 673/1997 on the file of Court II Additional Civil Judge

(Sr.Dn.), Bijapur at Bijapur. MFA No.4009/2003 is in relation to LAC No.671/1997; MFA No.4010/2003 is in relation to LAC No.672/1997

and MFA No.4011/2003 is in relation to LAC 673/1997. Being aggrieved by the enhancement allowed by the Reference Court, enhancing the

market value in respect of the lands acquired for ""Upper Krishna Project"" pursuant to 4(1) notification published in the Karnataka Gazette on

7.11.1996, enhancing the market value from Rs.20,000/- per acre as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.52,500/- per acre.

Appeals have been listed for further orders regarding non filing of paper-Book and if we look at the history of these appeals, they are only being

adjourned for one reason or the other without making the appeals ready for hearing.

When these matters were being heard, we noticed that the Judgment of the learned Judge of the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation

from Rs.20.000/- per acre as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.52,500/- per acre was not supportable at all and was bereft of

any acceptable reasons. We found that while the learned Judge of the Reference Court has rightly rejected the argument of the Counsel for the

land owners to the effect that the value of the land as indicated in Ex P6 to P9-Sale Deeds in respect of small bits of land in neighbouring villages

cannot be taken as a basis for determining the proper market value of the land under acquisition for the reason that, the sale deeds were in respect

of the small bits of land, whereas the acquisition in the present situation was in respect of large extent of agricultural lands and that the lands

covered under the Sale Deeds produced before the Court were located in different villages and the value shown therein was more based on the

non-agricultural potential than the real value of the land.

Though the learned Judge of the Reference Court rightly was not inclined to base the value of the land on such Exs P6 to P9, nevertheless and

perhaps rightly noted that in terms of Ex D2, a consent award passed in respect of other lands acquired under the very notification as agreed to

between the land owners and the State, whereunder the value of the lands had been fixed at Rs.35.000/- per acre and on such premise, the

learned Judge though indicated the value should be taken at Rs.35,000/- was nevertheless very generous and without any reasons increased it by

another 50% in respect of which no worthwhile reason is forthcoming and on such benevolent re-determination fixed the market value at

Rs.52.500/- per acre.

Aggrieved by this Judgment and Award and in respect of the three land acquisition cases, the present appeals are by the State Government

through the Special Land Acquisition officer.

We have noticed that by the Common Judgment under appeal, the learned judge of the Reference Court had disposed of 5 references cases. It

was also brought to our notice in the course of hearing of these appeals that the State Government had preferred two more appeals in MFA

No.4013/2003 corresponding to LAC No.674 & MFA 4014/2003 corresponding to LAC No. 675/1997 and those two appeals had come up

before the learned Single Judge of this Court and in terms of the common judgment dated 4.2.2003. these two appeals had been allowed, but the

matter was nevertheless remanded to the Reference Court for fresh disposal of the reference cases after affording opportunity to the parties to lead

further evidence.

It was also brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-land owners that, on such remand, the learned Judge of

the Reference Court has now passed judgment afresh in LAC Nos.11/2009 and 12/2009 [re-numbered after remand at the consequent upon the

transfer of the cases to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)., at Basavana Bagewadil and have now been disposed of as per the common Judgment

dated 21.11.2009 re-fixing the market value of the land in question at Rs. 1,75,000/-per acre based on the judgment dated 13.11.2007 rendered

by the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A-No. 1907/2003 (LAC), which was an appeal preferred by the claimant in LAC No.672/1997. We

fail to understand that the Government appeals remained languishing without being attended or being brought to the notice of the Court whereas the

Claimants appeal was heard independently though the Special Land Acquisition Officer alone was the respondent in that appeal of the claimant for

further enhancement and a perusal of a copy of this Judgment also shows that the learned Additional Government Advocate had obviously

remained absent for the reason that the bench has observed in para 5 of the Judgment as under:-

xxxxxxx

Respondent-Land Acquisition Officer though served has remained un-represented. With reference to the above legal submissions made on

behalf of the owner, we have examined the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded by the reference Court on the contentious point with

regard to the enhancement of compensation with reference to the original record which is made available to us particularly Ex.P6 to P9 the sale

deeds.

xxxxxx

While in the first instance Sri S S Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-land owners and also Sri P S Patil, learned

Counsel appearing for the respondent in MFA No.4011/2003 pressed for allowing the appeal of the Government [rather strange] and to remand

the matter in terms of the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in MFA No.4014/2003 c/w MFA No.4013/2003 (LAC)

dated 16.12.2005, though we had invited learned Counsel for the respondent to defend the Judgment and Award of the Reference Court, which

would lead us to dismiss the Government Appeal.

That was not the submission or the request of Sri S S Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-landlord and on the other

hand Sri P S Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord has now woken up to the developments and seeks time to file Cross

Objections, which request we reject outright.

If the matter warranted a remand for the required purpose perhaps we can acceded to the request of the learned Counsel appearing for the

respondents-land owner, but no reasons were assigned nor the Judgment of the learned single Judge assigned any worthwhile reasons justifying a

remand of the matter to the trial Court. A remand order is not passed for the sake of remand, but only if it is so warranted and if some purpose has

to be served as indicated even as per the provision of Order 41 Rule 23-A of CPC.

Be that as it may, now that Sri S.S.Kumman, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the appellants and also Smt. Shivaleela

Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-land owners have brought to our notice the Judgment of this Court in MFA

1907/2003 (LAC), there is absolutely no scope for retaining these appeals or doing any other thing except to dismiss these appeals. Accordingly,

all the three appeals are dismissed.

However, Smt. Shivaleela Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-land owners in MFA 4009/2003 submits that the

respondents-land owners have filed Cross Objections and therefore that will have to be considered.

It is true that even when the main appeal is dismissed, Cross Objection filed in a proper manner raising tenable grounds has to be considered

independently and disposed of on its merits. For such purpose, we looked into the record of Cross Objection No.331/2005 which is also listed

today along with other appeals with a note of the Registry indicating doubt as to the maintainability of the cross objection. We are surprised that

the filing or pendency of their cross objection had never been brought to our notice till to day though learned Counsel for the respondents-land

owners had appeared earlier in the appeals filed by the State and we have been examining those matters on merits.

We also noticed that MFA.CROB.331/2005 being on record is also indicated for the first time today. On a perusal of the record in

MFA.CROB.331/2005, we notice that there is a delay of 523 days in preferring the Cross Objection and the Registry has raised an objection as

to the maintainability of this Cross Objection since it is not accompanied by any explanation or application for condonation of delay. Record in

MFA 4009/2003 indicates that the appeal had been admitted on 5.3.2004 and to the knowledge of the respondent in the appeal as Learned

Counsel for the respondent had appeared before the Court on that day and had infact even made a request for out of turn and immediate disposal

of the appeal itself, as indicated in the order sheet dated 5.3.2004, reading as under:-

SANJ:/ RMRJ:

05.03.2004

Admit

Post along with M.F.A.No.3480 of 2002. Ad-interim stay as prayed for subject to the appellant depositing 50% of enhanced compensation with

statutory benefits within six weeks. On such deposit being made, the claimants are at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

Six weeks time is granted to file paper book.

The counsel on both sides would submit that there is extreme urgency to hear these appeals out of turn. There is no provision for this Court to hear

the appeal of the year 2003. The office is, therefore, directed to place these appeals before the Hon''ble the Chief Justice and to post before

appropriate bench after obtaining necessary orders.

We also noticed that while the valuation slip appended to the memorandum of Cross Objection in MFA.CROB.331 /2005 recites the

memorandum of Cross Objection has been valued at Rs. 10.21,996/- and a Court Fee of Rs.63,325/- is payable and it has been paid, and the

valuation slip is signed by Sri S S Sajjanshetty. advocate, in reality only a sum of Rs. 100/-alone had been paid on 13.12.2005 as per a Court Fee

receipt appended to the Cross Objection and the presentation form to the Cross Objection also indicates Rs. 100/- is paid on the memorandum of

Cross Objection and Rs. 10/- paid on the Advocate Welfare Fund. Other than this no other Court Fee has been paid. The Cross Objection is

hopelessly barred by time and no explanation is forthcoming regarding the delay in preferring Cross Objection. Coupled with these, requisite Court

Fee has not been paid on the Cross Objection in terms of the valuation. In fact, on the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Cross

Objector has mislead this Court by incorrectly stating that a sum of Rs.63.225/- has been paid on the memorandum of cross objection, which is

also nothing short of a suppressio vary, a false and incorrect statement made before this Court by the Counsel.

Be that as it may, we do not find any justification to entertain Cross Objection of this nature, which is not a cross objection in the eye of law

and as rightly pointed out by the Registry, it is not maintainable.

Though Smt. Shivaleela Sajjanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the Cross Objector makes a request for a day''s time to make good the

deficiencies. We are not inclined to accede to this request for the reason that though the Cross Objection was presented before this Court on

13.12.2005 that too with a misrepresentation that the full Court Fee has been paid, whereas it has never paid, no steps have been taken by the

learned Counsel appearing for the Cross Objector during the last four years to make the Cross Objection tenable.

In this state of affairs, we are left with no choice but to reject the Cross Objection as not maintainable. Accordingly, Cross Objection also

rejected.

Judgment in these appeals and Cross Objection was dictated in the Court on 16th December, 2009.

Before signing and while correcting the typed papers of the Judgment, after reading the contents at para 15 of the Judgment, we realized that in

a similar matter in MFA No.2449/07, disposed of on 14.12.2009, wherein also we had noticed the same dereliction of the duty on the part of the

advocate, we have directed the Additional Registrar General of this Court to forward a copy of the order and other relevant papers to the Bar

Council of Karnataka for taking suitable action for possible professional misconduct if found warranted and in the present case also we are inclined

to issue directions to the Additional Registrar General at this bench, to forward a copy of the main Judgment in the above appeals and cross

objection and a copy of this order, along with other relevant papers, to the Bar Council of Karnataka for appropriate action at their end as we

have found the dereliction of duty on the part of the Advocate appearing for the land owner in the two cases is similar.

As we thought that a direction is to be issued to the Registrar, to place the papers before the Bar Council, in the present case also we had

directed the matter to be listed before the Court as ""for Being spoken to"".

We have heard Smt Shivaleela, learned counsel who had appeared for the respondent in the main appeal and cross objection and also Sri

Kumar, learned Addl, Government Advocate, appearing for the Land Acquisition Officer.

Learned counsel submits that the situation in that appeal and the present cross objection are identical, in so far as the statement contained in the

valuation slip attached to the Memorandum of appeal is concerned.

We are satisfied that this appeal/cross appeal is also a fit case to direct the Additional Registrar General of this Circuit Bench at Gulbarga to

forward a copy of this order to the Secretary, Bar Council of Karnataka for taking suitable action at their end. The Registrar General also to make

available further material/papers as will be required by the Bar Council for the purpose of action at their end.

Ordered accordingly.