Karnataka High Court
Celine D Souza vs Land Acquisition Officer & on 6 June, 2022
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 15678 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 15678 OF 2018 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. CELINE D'SOUZA
W/O LAWRENCE D'SOUZA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
R/AT STAR VILLA,
OLD CONVENT ROAD, BAJPE
MANGALORE-574 142.
REPRESENTED BY HIS DAUGHTER
& SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
DR. CLARISSA ALIAS
DR. CLARISSA (D'SOUZA) LAABMAYR
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDANTH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. L. GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER &
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
D C OFFICE BUILDING,
Digitally signed MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION
by POORNIMA
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2ND FLOOR
MANGALORE-575 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
D C OFFICE BUILDING
MANGALORE SUB DIVISION,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
MANGALORE-575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B. V. KRISHNA, AGA)
-2-
WP No. 15678 of 2018
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY THE PETITIONER A SUM OF RS.7,000/-
PERCENT OF LAND ACQUIRED, IN TERMS OF THE COMMON
JUDGMENT DTD 16.07.2016 MADE IN M.A.NO.45/2011 AND
CONNECTED CASES BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE VIDE ANNX-H AND ETC.,.
THIS WP IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"a) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing
the endorsement dated 16.02.2018 bearing
No.LA.QCR.171/17-18 issued by the 1st respondent
[Annexure-F].
b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, direction or order
directing the respondents to pay the petitioner a
sum of Rs.7,000/- per cent of land acquired, in
terms of the common judgment dated 16.07.2016
made in M.A.No.45/2011 and connected cases by
the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K.
Mangalore [Annexure-H]
c) Such other writs, directions, orders
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case including the award of costs".
2. The claimant is the owner of 67 cents of in survey No.22
of Malavoor Village, Mangalore Taluk, Mangaluru. The
said property was acquired for the purpose of formation
WP No. 15678 of 2018
of Bajpe Airport in the year 1989 as regards which, the
petitioner received notification under Section 12(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 22.01.1993 and filed an
application for enhancement of compensation vide
Annexure-C. Since nothing has happened on the said
representation, further representations were made on
05.02.2018 and on 08.02.2018 at Annexures-D and E
respectively, which have been rejected by the
respondents. In that background, the petitioner is before
this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
3. Sri Siddhant, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there are similar matters of acquisition in
MA.No.45/2011, in which enhanced compensation which
has been awarded at Rs.7,000/- per cent. As such, the
petitioner would be entitled for at least enhancement to
that extent.
4. Sri B V Krishna learned AGA submits that the petitioner
ought to have filed an application under Section 18(2) of
the Land Acquisition Act on 24.08.1993 pursuant to the
representation dated 20.04.1993 vide Annexure-C, not
WP No. 15678 of 2018
being followed on the same, fresh representations on
05.02.2018 and 08.02.2018 are made, which is beyond a
period of 90 days and as such was rightly dismissed by
respondent No.1 and he therefore submits that petition is
required to be dismissed
5. Heard Sri Siddanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri B V Krishna, learned AGA for respondents and perused
the materials on record.
6. It is not in dispute that notice under Section 12(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22.01.1993. It is also
not in dispute that application for reference was filed on
20.04.1993, which is within a period of 90 days. When
such application for reference was made, it was the duty
of respondent No.1 to consider the same and pass
necessary orders. Instead of doing so, no order was
passed. Due to said reason, the petitioner was
constrained to submit fresh representations on
05.02.2018 and 08.02.2018. While passing order on the
said fresh representations, respondent No.1 ought to
have taken into consideration that earlier application,
WP No. 15678 of 2018
which has been filed way-back in the year 1994 itself,
instead of doing so being of the opinion that fresh
representations were beyond period of limitation of 90
days, respondent No.1 dismissed the application.
7. In my considered view, the said reasoning of respondent
No.1 is improper. Respondent No.1 cannot take
advantage of his own inaction in not passing order on the
representation vide Annexure-C submitted way back in
the year 1994 which constrained the petitioner to file
fresh representations.
8. Be that as it may, as regards adjoining land, which had
been acquired under the very same notification for the
same purpose, compensation had been enhanced in
M.A.No.45/2011 and if that be so, it is required by the
State to issue necessary notice to land losers informing
them regarding enhancement of compensation and make
available such compensation to each and every land loser
as held by this Court in MSA No.200186/2019 dated
11.02.2021.
WP No. 15678 of 2018
9. In view thereof, I pass the following:-
::ORDER::
i. Certiorari is issued. Endorsement dated
16.02.2018 issued by respondent No.1 is hereby
quashed.
ii. Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.1
to consider the claim of the petitioner as
submitted on 20.04.1993 as per Annexure-C in
accordance with common judgment dated
16.07.2016 made in MA No.45/2011 within a
period of 3 months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order as also in accordance
with the decision in MSA No.200186/2019.
Petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
