Application u/s 30 of Act for apportionment of compensation can be made only when matter is pending before LAO

 Even for argument sake, if it is to be assumed that there is no limitation prescribed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is obvious that from the very scheme of the Act itself, an application can be made only when the matter is pending before the Land Acquisition Officer and at any rate before the distribution of compensation as awarded and not fifteen years after the award amount has been distributed. It is not as though such proceedings should be kept on the file of the Special Land Acquisition Officer forever. Such applications are relevant only so long as the proceedings are current before the Land Acquisition Officer and not thereafter. Such matters cannot be revived by an application before the Reference Court whether under Section 18(3) or under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, as the application to the Reference Court is also one which should be during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer and not long after the proceedings have become final.1

 AIR2008Kant54, 2008(1)KarLJ140, 2008(1)KCCR305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Civil Revision Petition No. 257 of 2007

Decided On: 03.12.2007

Appellants: Kempoji Rao
Vs.
Respondent: The Special Land Acquisition and Estate Officer and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894-Sections 18 and 30-Compensation for Land Acquisition-Apportionment of Payment- Application for-Limitation for-Held, an application under Section 30 of the Act for apportionment of compensation can be made only when the matter is pending before the LAO and at any rate before the distribution of compensation.

CRP was dismissed.

ORDER

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.

1. This civil revision petition is by a person who had tried his chances to seek not only for compensation in respect of an extent of 26 guntas of land in Sy. No. 121/19 of Arisinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, but also for a better compensation and whose attempt had failed in terms of the impugned order dated 29-11-2006 passed in LAC No. 270 of 2002, by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

2. While presenting this revision petition, it is claimed that there is a delay of 20 days and to get over the delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 supported with an affidavit explaining the delay and seeking for condonation of the same is filed.

3. Notice had been issued to the respondents and respondents-State of Karnataka and the Special Land Acquisition Officer are represented by Sri R.B. Venkataramana, learned Government Pleader.

4. I have heard Sri L.S. Chikkanagoudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Venkataramana, learned Government Pleader.

The delay being not inordinate and being small extent could have been possibly condoned accepting the version of the petitioner, but for the fact that there appears to be absolutely no merit in the revision petition itself and therefore I find no scope for ordering the application either.

5. The case of the petitioner was that he is the absolute owner of an extent of 31 guntas of land in Sy. No. 121/19 of Arisinakunte Village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District; that it had fallen to his share in the year 1977; that notwithstanding the petitioner had not been put on notice of the acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') issued and culminating in Award dated 10-10-1985; that while the petitioner was neither put on notice nor was aware of the proceedings; that his sister-in-law, one Yeshoda Bai--wife of his elder brother Narasimha Murthy had on the other hand very conveniently received compensation amount and walked away; that the compensation as determined is also woefully on the lower side; that the petitioner though had filed an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer questioning the payment of the entire amount to said Yeshoda Bai and also questioning the quantum of compensation as determined and had sought for referring these two questions for determination by the Civil Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer having not responded to the same, it became necessary for the petitioner to move the Reference Court for issuing directions to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer these two questions to the Reference Court, but the Reference Court having dismissed the application itself and that too without bestowing proper attention to the relevant aspects, the present revision petition.

6. Appearing for the petitioner Sri Chikkanagoudar, learned Counsel would submit that when the petitioner had acquired ownership of land in question way back in the year 1977, the proceedings without notice to him are bad in law and at any rate non-issue of notice cannot deprive the petitioner of his entitlement to receive compensation and correct compensation; that other technicalities could not have been put against the petitioner when it is a fact that the petitioner had not received the amount and one Yeshoda Bai, his sister-in-law had received the amount; that it was the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer to have decided this question of apportionment and also on the question of adequacy and when he had filed such application, the learned Judge of the Civil Court should have necessarily directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference to the Court on these two aspects, but the learned Judge of the Civil Court dismissing the application, is woefully not warranted in law, amounts to committing illegality and not exercising jurisdiction vested in it etc.

7. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the said Yeshoda Bai who it is alleged had received the amount was not even made as a party before the Civil Court. The learned Judge of the Civil Court who had an occasion to look into the matter and also the evidence let in by the very petitioner by examining himself before the Court and on examination of the records found that the case of the petitioner was totally not believable; that the record indicated that the petitioner having received compensation and to have signed to this effect as on 10-1-1986 itself and even otherwise the case of the petitioner being that he came to know about such acquisition proceedings and compensation paid in the year 1990 and coming up with an application dated 21-11-2001 for getting over the same by contending that he is entitled to enhanced compensation was hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore there was no occasion to entertain the application and dismissed the same.

8. Though Sri Chikkanagoudar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned Judge of the Reference Court is in error in dismissing the application of this nature on the ground of limitation as there is no period of limitation prescribed under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and also would urge that the petitioner had disputed the signature of one person characterised as brother of Narasimha Murthy and attributing that signature to the petitioner was not correct; that the signature had been forged in the name of the petitioner, I am afraid that cannot be examined in this petition, as if it was the case of the petitioner that the signature was a forged signature then it was for him to prove that before the Reference Court. That having not been done before the Reference Court, there is no scope for examining that aspect of the matter in this revision petition.

9. Even for argument sake, if it is to be assumed that there is no limitation prescribed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is obvious that from the very scheme of the Act itself, an application can be made only when the matter is pending before the Land Acquisition Officer and at any rate before the distribution of compensation as awarded and not fifteen years after the award amount has been distributed. It is not as though such proceedings should be kept on the file of the Special Land Acquisition Officer forever. Such applications are relevant only so long as the proceedings are current before the Land Acquisition Officer and not thereafter. Such matters cannot be revived by an application before the Reference Court whether under Section 18(3) or under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, as the application to the Reference Court is also one which should be during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer and not long after the proceedings have become final.

10. That apart, payment under Section 31 of the Act even as indicated in the provision is not conclusive if a person entitled for payment has not received compensation but some other person has claimed it as original person and the entitlement of the proper person to receive or claim reimbursement from the recipient is kept open under the very provision and that cannot be achieved in a proceeding of this nature but has to be done independently.

11. It is for this reason, this petition is dismissed as both for want of merit and also one barred by limitation and the application for condonation of delay is rejected.

Print Page