Santosh S. Nayak vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 9809 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Santosh S. Nayak vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 4 April, 2024

                                            -1-
                                                           NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130
                                                  MFA No. 102510 of 2016




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                                                                 R
                        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

                                        BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
              MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102510 OF 2016 (LAC)

             BETWEEN:

             SANTOSH S. NAYAK
             (P.A. HOLDER),
             R/O. SIKKERI, TAL: BAGALKOT.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
             (BY SRI. M. M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

             AND:

             1.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
                  MIP, NO.1, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.

             2.   THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                  KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAM LTD,
                  M.B.C, DIVN.NO.I, GADDANAKERI CAMP,
                  TAL: BAGALKOT.
Digitally
signed by
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
ROHAN
HADIMANI T
             (BY SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
Location:        SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADV. FOR R2)
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
                    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF
             LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
             AWARD DTD: 13.12.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO.148/2009 ON THE FILE
             OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAGALKOT REJECTING
             THE REFERENCE PETITION SINCE IT WAS SUBMITTED BY IN
             COMPETENT PERSON.


                    THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
             COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                -2-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130
                                       MFA No. 102510 of 2016




                         JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the

consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for

final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/GPA holder of

the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated

13.12.2011 passed in LAC No.148/2009 on the file of II

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot (for short, 'reference

Court').

3. Heard Sri.M.M.Patil, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri.Shivaraj C.Bellakki, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

reference Court has committed grave error in rejecting the

reference petition on the ground that the reference is sought by

one Sri.Santosh S.Nayak, the appellant herein, as a Power of

Attorney (for short, 'PA') of the land owner Sri.Manappa

Ramappa Lamani and he has not produced the copy of PA. It is

submitted that the reference Court ought not to have rejected

the reference once the respondent No.1-Land Acquisition

Officer [for short, 'the LAO'], applying his mind entertained the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130

reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 [for short, 'the Act'] and makes reference. The reference

Court is required to look into the merits of the case and

determine the entitlement of higher compensation, however, it

can reject the reference petition only if it is sought beyond the

period of limitation. But in the case on hand, the reference

Court has rejected the reference petition on hyper-technical

grounds, hence, seeks to allow the appeal by setting aside the

impugned judgment and remand the matter back to the

reference Court to enable the reference Court to consider the

reference petition on merits and determine the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2

supports the impugned judgment of the reference Court and

submits that the reference Court has assigned reasons at

paragraph No.15 of its judgment, it has come to the conclusion

that Sri.Santosh S.Nayak is a stranger to the land in question

and failed to produce the copy of the PA of the land owner

hence, the reference petition itself is not maintainable. Hence,

he seeks to dismiss the appeal. It is further submitted that if

this Court comes to the conclusion that the reference petition is

maintainable, then due to the fault of the appellant of not

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130

producing the copy of PA, the interest may be denied from the

date of dismissal of the reference petition till this date.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the

material available on record.

7. It is not in dispute that the land of Sri.Manappa

Ramappa Lamani has been acquired by the respondent-State

for the benefit of respondent No.2. The Land Acquisition Officer

passed an award by determining the compensation at

Rs.49,027/- per acre for dry land and Rs.61,487/- for irrigation

land. The material available on record indicates that

Sri.Santosh S.Nayak, the PA holder of Sri.Manappa Ramappa

Lamani, sought the reference under Section 18(1) of the Act on

behalf of the land owner. The respondent No.1-SLAO taking

note of the fact that the reference is sought for higher

compensation and the reference is sought within the prescribed

limitation provided under Section 18 of the Act, makes a

reference to the reference Court. The reference Court rejected

the reference on the ground that the said Sri.Santosh S.Nayak

has not produced the copy of the PA before the LAO at the time

of seeking reference. This Court taking note of the submissions

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130

and the material available on record, is of the considered view

that the reference Court has committed grave error in coming

to such erroneous conclusion. Admittedly, the very land owner,

whose land has been acquired, has entered the witness box

before the reference Court as PW-1 and deposed supporting the

reference petition and sought the enhancement of

compensation. If the PW-1 would have deposed that he has not

given any PA to one Sri.Santosh S.Nayak, then the reference

Court would have justified in rejecting the reference. In the

instant case, the respondent No.1-SLAO after applying his

mind, entertained the reference petition based on the PA

holder's requisition and makes the reference which was

registered as LAC No.148/2009 by the reference Court,

Bagalkot. The rejection of the reference on the ground that the

PA holder cannot seek the reference and failed to produce the

copy of the PA is a perverse finding, contrary to Section 18 of

the Act and the material available on record.

8. The legislators, with an object of providing an

opportunity to the persons interested to seek the reference,

have referred the word 'any person interested' in Section 18 of

the Act. In other words, any person who is interested in the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130

land can seek the reference under Section 18 of the Act. In the

instant case, though Sri.Santosh S.Nayak may not be an

interested person, however, he is the PA holder of the original

land owner Sri.Manappa Ramappa Lamani, who has entered the

witness box before the reference Court and deposed in support

of the reference, which clearly demonstrates that the land

owner Sri.Manappa Ramappa Lamani has authorized

Sri.Santosh S.Nayak to seek the reference under Section 18 of

the Act. The contrary findings recorded by the reference Court

is not only perverse but against the settled principles of law.

9. The law of procedure is meant to regulate,

effectively to assist and aid the substantive right of the party

under the law and not to deny substantial justice. The

reference Court has rejected the claim petition on hyper-

technical grounds which ought not to have been done. When

the very land owner, who has lost the land, entered the witness

box in the reference proceedings and deposed in favour of

claim petition and sought the enhancement of compensation,

rejection of the reference petition on flimsy ground by the

reference Court is contrary to the material available on record

and it defeats the substantive right of the land looser and

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130

accordingly requires to be interfered with. The procedure

provided under the Statute or being followed by the Courts is

always sub-servant to the substantive law or substantive right

conferred by the respective Statutes. Nothing can be taken

away by the procedure what is given by the substantive law.

The reference Court being the Court of law and equity cannot

defeat the substantive right conferred by the Statute on the

land loser to seek reference by adopting hyper-technical

approach. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of

cases have held that the right to property though is not a

fundamental right, but it is constitutionally recognized right and

also human right. Every land owner has a right to approach the

reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation under

Section 18 of the Act. In the instant case, Power of Attorney

Holder of the interested person/land owner sought reference as

provided under law and the reference Court without

appreciating the object and intent of law maker, defeated the

substantive right of the interested person by rejecting the

reference on hyper-technical ground of non-production of copy

of Power of Attorney before the Land Acquisition Officer.

Nothing prevented the reference Court to direct the Power of

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130

Attorney Holder or original land owner (PW1) to produce copy

of the Power of Attorney. The reference Court has not even

formulated the points for consideration with regard to seeking

of reference by the Power of Attorney Holder. Interestingly,

the reference Court has answered the points formulated by it in

favour of the claimants with regard to limitation and other

points. However, it has recorded a finding that the copy of

Power of Attorney was not placed, hence, reference is bad. The

entire approach of the reference Court in rejecting the

reference petition under Section 18 of the Act is not only

contrary to the settled principles of law but also contrary to the

material available on record. Accordingly, the impugned

judgment and award of the reference Court is set-aside. The

matter is remitted back to the reference Court for fresh

consideration after affording reasonable opportunities to both

the parties to adduce their respective evidence.

10. The reference petition in LAC No.148/9 is restored

on the file of the reference Court. This Court keeping in mind

the fact that the land in question was acquired in the year

2005, directs the reference Court to dispose off the reference

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6130

as early as possible but not later than ten (10) months from

the date of appearance of the parties.

11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondent No.2 that the land owner may be denied the

interest from 13.12.2011 to till this date is taken note of for the

purpose of rejection only. In the instant case, there is no fault

on the part of the owner or GPA holder of the land owner,

hence, the land owner is entitled to just and fair market value

of the acquired land along with all the statutory benefits and

interest.

12. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is

allowed.

13. Learned counsel for the parties submit that they

would appear before the reference Court on 29.05.2024

without awaiting notice from the reference Court. Hence, the

reference Court is directed to regulate its proceedings and

dispose off the reference petition within a period of ten (10)

months from 29.05.2024.

Sd/-

JUDGE BSR Ct-an