Bapuji Vidyarthi Nilaya (R) vs The Additional Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1466 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

 WRIT PETITION NO.11364 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

BAPUJI VIDYARTHI NILAYA (R).,
No.143, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 023.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. L. GOVINDARAJU,
S/O LATE LINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
                                      ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
   BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
   KUMAR PARK, BENGALURU - 020.

2. THE COMMISSIONER,
   BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
   KUMAR PARK, BENGALURU - 020.


                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                              2




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226   AND 227    OF THE    CONSTITUTION    OF INDIA
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.28/1987 ON
THE FILE OF LEARNED JUDGE CCH-17, BENGALURU;
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:21.04.2021 PASSED
ON IA NO.7 FILED BY THIS PETITIONER UNDER SECTION
151 OF CPC IN LAC NO.28/1987 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED
JUDGE CCH-17 BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order on

I.A.No.7 dated 21.04.2021, passed in LAC No.28/1987

by the II Additional City Civil Sessions Judge and

Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-17), has filed this writ

petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this

petition are as under:

The respondent No.1 was allotted a land in

Sy.No.1 and issued Grant Certificate by the

Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk to the petitioner on

17.10.1959. The said land was acquired by the

respondent No.1 by issuing preliminary notification

under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Thereafter, final notification was issued and award

came to be passed on 06.09.1999. The petitioner

filed a protest petition under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. The said reference was

referred to the Reference Court. The petitioner lead a

oral and documentary evidence before the Reference

Court. In the said reference, petitioner has filed an

application I.A.No.7 seeking to release the

compensation amount in favour of the petitioner.

The Reference Court did not pass any order on the

said application. The petitioner being aggrieved by

the in action on the part of the Reference Court in not

considering I.A.No.7, has filed writ petition in

W.P.No.49767/2018, before this Court. This Court

vide order dated 25.03.2019, disposed off the writ

petition and directed the Reference Court to pass an

order. The petitioner has also filed another writ

petition in W.P.No.1925/2021. This Court vide order

dated 25.03.2021, directed the Reference Court to

consider I.A.No.7, in pursuance of the direction issued

by this Court, in the aforesaid writ petition, the

Reference Court considered I.A.No.7 and dismissed

the same. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by

the order on I.A.No.7, has filed this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the Reference Court has committed an error in

rejecting I.A.No.7. He further submits that the land of

the petitioner was acquired and no compensation has

been paid. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to

allow the writ petition.

5. Perused the records and considered the

submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is not in dispute that the land of the

petitioner was acquired by respondent No.1 and award

came to be passed by respondent No.1. The

petitioner being dissatisfied with the compensation

awarded by respondent No.1 has filed the petition

under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The

matter was referred to Reference Court for

enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court

has already recorded the evidence of the parties and

now the matter is posted for arguments. The

petitioner filed an application seeking for release of

compensation amount in respect of the said land. It is

one thing clear from the records that the Reference

Court, has not passed judgment and award on merits

and without there being any judgment and award

passed by the Reference Court. The Reference Court

cannot release the compensation amount in favour

of the petitioner. The Trial Court as rightly

observed that until and unless the judgment and

award is passed the Reference Court cannot release

the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner.

The Reference Court is justified in rejecting the

application filed by the petitioner. I do not find any

grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However,

liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make request to

the Reference Court, for early disposal of LAC. If such

a request is made by the petitioner, the Reference

Court may consider the same and pass judgment and

award as expeditiously as possible.

SD/-

JUDGE

GRD