Karnataka High Court

Pandappa vs The Special Land Acquisition ... on 19 January, 2022

Bench: R Natarajpresided Byrnj

                             :1:


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ


WRIT PETITION NOS.105530-531 OF 2016 (GM-CPC)


 BETWEEN:

 1.     PANDAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA TIRAKANNAVAR
        AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

 2.     SMT. [email protected] RENUKA
        W/O. HANMANTHGOUDA PATIL,
        AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

 ALL ARE R/O. KAJJIDONI AND ALSO AT JALIKATTI B.K.,
 TQ. MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                            ... PETITIONERS

 (BY SRI. VIJAYENDRA BHIMAKKANAVAR, ADVOCATE)


 AND:

 1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
        MALAPRABHA PROJECT-I, BAGALKOT.

 2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
        MBC, DIV-I, GADDANAKERI, BAGALKOT.

 3.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
        REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                           :2:


     M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560001.

4.   THE ADMINISTRATIVE, SHIRESTEDAR,
     ATTACHED TO SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
     MUDHOL, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO 4)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.09.2015 IN LAC NO.167/2010
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MUDHOL, VIDE ANNEXURE-D.


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


                        ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the order dated

18.09.2015 in LAC No.167/2010 passed by the Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Mudhol by which the Court issued witness

summons to the Tahasildar to produce the RTC of R.S.

No.2/1A and R.S. No.2/1 of Muddapur and to give evidence

regarding the genuiness of Ex.P.2. The petitioners have

also challenged the final judgment and award dated

15.02.2016 in LAC No.167/2010 passed by the Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Mudhol by which the reference petition

was rejected and a complaint was ordered to be registered

against the appellant before the jurisdictional Court.

2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the

land bearing Sy.No.2/1 and 2/1A of Jalikatti B.K. Village,

Mudhol Taluk of which 01 acre 01 gunta was acquired by

the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for construction of a canal. An

award was passed on 23.07.2007. The petitioners sought

enhancement of the compensation which was referred to

the Civil Judge Senior Division, Mudhol for adjudication on

05.03.2010 in LAC No.167/2010. The petitioner No.3

submitted evidence by way of affidavit on 28.10.2014 and

also marked the record of rights of Sy.No.2/1A and 2/1 as

Ex.P.2 and P.3 for the year 2003-04. The petitioners claim

that up to the year 2003-04 the Village Accountant and the

Revenue Officer physically inspected the land to know the

nature of crop raised and the extent of land cultivated.

However, after computerization of the land records from the

year 2003-04 the entries in the column No.12 and 13 are

inserted without inspecting the land. The petitioners claim

that even in their case too, the Village Accountant and

Revenue Inspector did not inspect their lands and

consequently, column No.12 and 13 of the RTC were

entered as per the whims and fancies of the revenue

authorities. The petitioners claim that they had raised

pomegranate plants in the acquired land which was

reflected in the record of rights. These records of rights

were issued by the revenue Officer under the seal and

signature of the Tahasildar.

3. The petitioners claim that after the evidence was

closed the counsel for the land acquisition officer did not

lead any evidence but advanced arguments. On

18.09.2015 the reference court entertained doubt regarding

the RTC marked by the petitioners and hence issued witness

summons to the Tahasildar, Mudhol to produce the RTC.

On 31.01.2015 the Tahasildar appeared before the

reference Court and produced Ex.R.2 and R.3. On the same

day the reference Court treated the cross examination of

the Tahasildar as nil. Thereafter, the reference Court

passed the judgment on 15.02.2016 dismissing the

reference petition and also ordered that a complaint be

registered against the petitioners.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present

petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the reference Court had rejected the reference on the

ground that Ex.P.2 and P.3 showed that the land was

cultivated for pomegranate while Ex.R.2 and R.3 showed

that Sy.No.2/1A was not cultivated and the Sy.No.2/1 was

cultivated for maize. The learned counsel submitted that

entering the crop particulars in the revenue records was at

the hands of the revenue authorities and therefore the

petitioners have no role to play. The learned counsel

submitted that Ex.P.2 and P.3 carried the hologram of the

office of the Tahasildar while Ex.R.1 and R.2 did not carry

the hologram. The learned counsel submitted that the

reference Court without giving an opportunity to cross

examine the Tahasildar blindly held that Ex.P.2 and P.3

were fabricated for the purpose of laying a claim to higher

compensation. The learned counsel further stated that the

evidence of PW-1 clearly established that the petitioners

had raised pomegranate plants in the land in question in the

year 1998. He submitted that this was not disputed by the

land Acquisition Officer. He therefore submitted that the

reference Court committed an error in relying upon at

Ex.R.2 and R.3 to doubt the case of the petitioners.

6. Per contra, the Additional Government Advocate

submitted that there is a variance from the particulars of

crop found in Ex.P.1, P.2 and Ex.R.2 and R.3. He submitted

that the petitioners did not cross examine the Tahasildar

and therefore they cannot now turn around to claim that

they were not given any opportunity.

7. I have considered the submissions of the

learned counsel for the parties. The reference Court

rejected the reference on the following grounds:

(i) That the name of Smt. Renuka was not mentioned in the award and therefore she was not entitled to seek reference and give evidence before it.

(ii) That it was mentioned in the award that the acquired land was dry and the land Acquisition Officer after inspecting the land held that no crop was raised in the land.

(iii) That the petitioners sought reference for enhancement on the ground that they had raised sugarcane, sunflower, cotton and onion in the acquired land and were earning Rs.2 lakhs per acre. However in the evidence of PW-1, he stated that pomegranate plants were raised in the acquired land. That the petitioners had not produced any material evidence to establish that they had raised pomegranate or sugarcane, onion, sunflower, cotton.

(iv) That the Tahasildar appeared before the reference Court and marked Ex.R.2 and 3 which are the RTC extracts of R.S.

        No.2/1/8    and        R.S.    No.2/1   which
        indicated that the crops grown in the
        land were maize and flak seeds while in



               Ex.P.2   and    P.3,    it    was   shown   as
               pomegranate.           That   the   Tahasildar
               deposed that Ex.P.2 and P.3 was false
               and fabricated.

11. The proceedings before the reference Court

indicates that the petitioners were not given adequate

opportunity to cross examine the Tahasildar and they were

also not given opportunity to rebut the evidence of the

Tahasildar by furnishing documents to establish that the

petitioners had grown pomegranate in the acquired land.

12. In that view of the matter the order passed by

the reference Court warrants interference. Hence, the

following: