Karnataka High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Siddanagouda S/O Mahanthgouda Patil on 30 May, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
CRP No. 100005 of 2015
C/W CRP No. 100001 of 2015
CRP No. 100002 of 2015
CRP No. 100003 of 2015
CRP No. 100004 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100005/2015
C/W. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100001/2015
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100002/2015
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100003/2015
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100004/2015
IN CRP.NO.100005/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, LAKKAMMAHANAHALLI, DHARWAD,
REP. BY THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: High
1. MAHANTHGOUDA S/O. ADIVAPPAGOUDA PATIL,
Court of
Karnataka AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.1/13, MADHURA ESTATE,
4TH CROSS, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MISC.
NO.12/2013 DATED 29.10.2014 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
CRP No. 100005 of 2015
C/W CRP No. 100001 of 2015
CRP No. 100002 of 2015
CRP No. 100003 of 2015
CRP No. 100004 of 2015
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT HUBBALLI,
ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED
BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
HUBBALLI IN MISC.NO.12/2013 DATED 29.10.2014 AND ETC.,
IN CRP.NO.100001/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, LAKKAMMAHANAHALLI, DHARWAD,
REP. BY THE SPL.LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADIVEPPAGOUDA S/O. MAHANTHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: H.NO.-A13, MADHURA ESTATE,
4TH CROSS, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.M.KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, PRAYING CALL FOR
RECORDS IN MISC NO.08/2013 DATED 29.10.2014 ON THE FILE
OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT
HUBBALLI. ALLOW THE PETITION AND SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUBBALLI IN MISC.NO.08/2013 DATED
29.10.2014 AND ETC.,
IN CRP.NO.100002/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
CRP No. 100005 of 2015
C/W CRP No. 100001 of 2015
CRP No. 100002 of 2015
CRP No. 100003 of 2015
CRP No. 100004 of 2015
BOARD, LAKKAMMAHANAHALLI, DHARWAD,
REP. BY THE SPL.LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O. MAHANTHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.H.NO.A13, MADHURA ESTATE,
4TH CROSS, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.10.2014, PASSED IN
MISC.NO.09/2013, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVL
JUDGE & JMFC, HUBBALLI & ETC.,
IN CRP.NO.100003/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
BOARD,
LAKKAMMAHANAHALLI, DHARWAD,
REP.BY THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARADHA W/O. MAHANTHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: H.NO.A13, MADHURA ESTATE,
4TH CROSS, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
CRP No. 100005 of 2015
C/W CRP No. 100001 of 2015
CRP No. 100002 of 2015
CRP No. 100003 of 2015
CRP No. 100004 of 2015
D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.M.KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 29.10.2014, PASSED IN
MISC.NO.10/2013, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVL
JUDGE & JMFC, HUBBALLI & ETC.,
IN CRP.NO.100004/2015:
BETWEEN:
THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, LAKKAMMAHANAHALLI, DHARWAD,
RPTD.BY THE SPL.LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHASHANK S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANGANAGOUDA S/O. MAHANTHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.H.NO. A13, MADHURA ESTATE,
4TH CROSS, HUBBALLI.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.C.COMPOUND, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI S.M.SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/S.115 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED: 29.10.2014, PASSED IN
MISC.NO.11/2013, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVL
JUDGE & JMFC, HUBBALLI AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
CRP No. 100005 of 2015
C/W CRP No. 100001 of 2015
CRP No. 100002 of 2015
CRP No. 100003 of 2015
CRP No. 100004 of 2015
ORDER
1. These petitions are filed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer aggrieved by the orders dated
29.10.2014 passed in Misc. Nos. 12/2013, 8/2013, 9/2013,
10/2013 & 11/2013 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
& JMFC, Hubballi, by which the trial Court, while allowing
the petitions filed by the respondents under Sections
18(3)(b) of the Act has directed the appellant - Land
Acquisition Officer to submit the application of reference
along with the relevant documents and report within six
months.
2. The said petitions were filed by the respondents
- petitioners - claimants herein seeking direction to the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Deputy
Commissioner to make reference of their applications filed
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the
Act") in respect of acquired lands bearing Block Nos.5/1,
5/7 & 11/1 measuring 1 acre 11 gunta 4 anna in Misc.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
No.12/2013; Block Nos.5/3 & 11/3 measuring 1 acre in
Misc. No.8/2013; Block Nos.5/4 & 11/4 measuring 39
guntas in Misc. No.9/2013; Block Nos.5/5 & 11/5 measuring
39 guntas in Misc. No.10/2013; & Block Nos.5/2 & 11/2
measuring 39 guntas in Misc. No.11/2013 of Gokul Village
of Hubballi.
3. The case of the respondents is that their lands
were sought to be acquired as per the notification dated
04.07.2011 for the purposes of upgradation of Hubballi
Airport. The petitioners came to know about the acquisition
of their lands through their neighbours when they received
compensation amount in respect of their acquired lands on
28.10.2011. The case of the respondents - claimants is that
they were not aware of the award having been passed as
they did not receive any notice under Section 12 of the Act.
It is their further case that on the very day, they filed
application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference of
the matter. Since no action was taken thereon, they filed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
petitions under Section 18(3)(b) of the Act before the trial
Court.
4. The said application is resisted by the appellant -
Land Acquisition Officer contending that the award was
passed on 18.04.2011 under Section 11 of the Act
determining the amount of compensation payable in respect
of the acquired land and the same was declared on
24.06.2011. Notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was
issued on 04.07.2011 and was served on the claimants on
12.07.2011. It is further contended that since the notice
was served on 12.10.2011 and the application filed by the
claimants on 28.11.2011, is barred by limitation, as the
same was beyond the prescribed period of 90 days.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties,
the trial Court framed the following points for its
consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
In Misc. No.12/2013:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the petition
is in time and sufficient grounds made out to
allow the petition for direction against the
respondents to refer the application under
Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act?
2. What Order?
In Misc. Nos.8/2013 & 9/2013
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the petitions
are in time and sufficient grounds made out to
allow the petitions for direction against the
respondents to refer the applications under
Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act?
2. What Order?
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the petition
is in time and sufficient grounds made out to
allow the petition for direction against the
respondents to refer the application under
Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act?
2. What Order?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the petition
is in time and sufficient grounds made out to
allow the petition for direction against the
respondents to refer the application under
Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act?
2. What Order?
6. The claimants examined themselves as PW1 and
PW2 and exhibited five documents. One witness was
examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer and
marked 18 documents.
7. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court found
that the Land Acquisition Officer has not produced any
acceptable evidence to justify his contention of service of
notice under Section 12(2) of the Act on 12.07.2011 as
contended. As such the trial Court accepted the contention
of the land owners that they had the knowledge of passing
of the award only on 28.11.2011 and they filed the
application within time. Accordingly, allowed the application
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
filed by them, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to
submit the reference application as noted hereinabove.
8. Being aggrieved by the same, these petitions are
filed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
taking through the records submit that notice under Section
12(2) of the Act was served on one Siddanagouda Patil,
who is none other than the one of the members of the
family of the claimants. He further contends that all the
claimants are residing in the same house and service of
notice on one person is sufficient enough and should be
construed as service of notice on the others. Thus, he
submits that the trial Court has lost sight of this aspect of
the matter even while rejecting the contention of the Land
Acquisition Officer regarding the limitation while allowing
the applications filed by the claimants particularly Ex.R11 in
Misc. No.12/2013; Ex.R8 in Misc. No.8/2013; Ex.R17 in
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
Misc. No.9/2013; Ex.R6 in Misc. No.10/2013 & Ex.R8 in
Misc. No.11/2013 produced.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents - land owners submits that there has been no
service of notice of any nature whatsoever. He submits that
though the appellant - Land Acquisition Officer contends
that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act has been served
on one of the family members, there has been no proof
even of such service of notice. He submits that service of
notice has to be as contemplated under Section 45 of the
Act, more particularly with reference to the Karnataka
Amendment and no such notice having been served, the
application filed by the claimants on the very same day
when they learnt about passing of the award was well
within time. He also further submits that the application
filed by the claimants under Section 18(3) of the Act
directly to the reference Court is also within time.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
11. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Premji Nathu Vs. State of
Gujarat and another1, wherein at paragraph No.15 it is
held as under:
"15. In the light of the above, it is to be seen
whether the conclusion recorded by the Reference
Court, which has been approved by the High Court
that the application filed by the appellant was barred
by time is legally sustainable. A careful reading of
the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the
application filed by the appellant under Section 18(1)
shows that the notice issued by the Collector under
Section 12(2) was served upon him on 22.2.1985.
Thereafter, his advocate obtained certified copy of
the award and filed application dated 8.4.1985 for
making a reference to the Court. This implies that
copy of the award had not been sent to the appellant
along with the notice and without that he could not
have effectively made an application for seeking
reference. On behalf of the State Government, no
evidence was produced before the Reference Court
to show that copy of the award was sent to the
appellant along with the notice. Unfortunately, while
(2012)5 SCC 250
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
deciding issue No.3, this aspect has been totally
ignored by the Reference Court which mechanically
concluded that the application filed on 8.4.1985 was
beyond the time specified in Section 18(2)(b). The
learned Single Judge of the High Court also
committed serious error by approving the view taken
by the Reference Court, albeit without considering
the fact that the notice issued by the Collector under
Section 12(2) was not accompanied by a copy of the
award which was essential for effective exercise of
right vested in the appellant to seek reference under
Section 18(1)."
12. Referring to the said judgment, learned counsel
emphatically submits that mere service of notice is not
sufficient unless the same is accompanied with the copy of
the award as the claimants are required to be made known
about the contents of the award.
13. With above, he submits that no grounds are
made out by the petitioners warranting interference at the
hand of this Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the records.
15. Acquisition of the lands belonging to the
respondents is not in dispute. Though it is contended by the
appellant - land Acquisition Officer that notice as required
under Section 12 of the Act was served, it is the case of the
Land Acquisition Officer that said service was upon one of
the family members of the claimants namely Siddanagouda
Patil. That itself indicate that notice has not been served on
all the family members. Assuming that there was a service
of notice on all the family members as sought to be made
out, as rightly taken note of by the trial Court, even the
proof of said service is also not established before the trial
Court. Perusal of Ex.R11 in Misc. No.12/2013; Ex.R8 in
Misc. No.8/2013; Ex.R17 in Misc. No.9/2013; Ex.R6 in Misc.
No.10/2013 & Ex.R8 in Misc. No.11/2013 reveal that the
same is a photocopy and the same is not even a original. In
the absence of confrontation of the said service on the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
person against whom the same is claimed to have been
served, it cannot be held that the service is effective. It is
settled law that the process of acquisition of lands and the
provisions applicable thereon has to be construed strictly,
as the same would have the effect of depriving the
propriety rights over the immovable property and the same
has to be in accordance with law. The same cannot be left
for inference and conjunctures. Further, as rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel for the respondents that service
of notice shall be have to be as required under Section 45
of the Act as amended by Karnataka, which reads as under:
"Karnataka. - For section 45, substitute the
following section, namely:-
"45. Service of Notices. - (1) Subject to the
provisions of this section and any rules that may be
made under this Act, the mode of service of notices
issued under this Act shall be as follows:-
(a) A notice of a general nature or affecting a
class of persons shall be published-
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
(i) in the Official Gazette or any
newspaper published in Kannada or
English and in circulation in the
district in which the land concerned
is situate, and
(ii) by affixing copies of the notice in
prominent places on or near the
land concerned;
(b) A notice affecting an individual,l
corporation or firm shall be served in the
manner provided for the service of
summons under rule 2 of Order XXIX or
rule 3 of Order XXX, as the case may be,
of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908;
(c) A notice affecting an individual person
(not being a corporation or firm) shall be
served in the manner provided for the
service of summons in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, or by sending it by
registered post under a letter addressed
to the person named at his last known
residence address or place of business,
and the notice shall be deemed to be
served on such person on the date on
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
which the notice sent by registered post
will, in the usual course of post, be
received by the addressee.
(2) Where the ownership of the land is in dispute
or where the persons interested in the land are
not readily traceable and the notice cannot be
served without undue delay, the notice may be
served by publishing it in the Official Gazette,
where possible, by affixing a copy thereof at
any conspicuous part of the land to which it
relates."
16. No material is placed on record either before the
trial Court or before this Court with regard to compliance /
adherence, the requirement of service of notice as required
under the above provisions.
17. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find
any merit in these petitions warranting interference. The
petitions are dismissed.
18. The orders dated 29.10.2014 passed in Misc.
Nos. 12/2013, 8/2013, 9/2013, 10/2013 & 11/2013 on the
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7233
file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi, is
confirmed.
19. In view of the dismissal of the petitions, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the
same are accordingly disposed off.
SD/-
JUDGE
VNP*/CT-ASC
