Judgment:
(Prayer: Writ Appeal Filed U/S 4 Of The Karnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition No.27314- 27340/2011 (LA-KIADB) Dated 16/04/2012.)
1. The legality and correctness of the order passed in W.P.Nos.27314-340/2011 dated 16.4.2012 is called in question in this appeal. In all 22 persons had filed writ petitions jointly, Out of 22 persons, the appellant is petitioner No.20 in the aforesaid writ petitions.
2. According to the appellant, under the notification, dated 1.2.2003 issued under Section 28(1) and notification dated 15.3.2004 issued under Section 28(4) of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short "KIAD Act"), the land of the petitioner was acquired and consent award was passed on 30.11.2005 settling the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. Other than the writ petitioners-the landowners who were not parties to the consent award and aggrieved by the general award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, had sought reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act to determine the market value. Accordingly, references had been sent to the reference court i.e., City Civil Court in LAC Nos.202/2006, 207/2006 and 208/2006.
3. When the matter was pending before the reference court, the matter was settled between the beneficiary and the claimants by way of a private arrangement. As a result of such private arrangement, the claimants in those references got additional amount. Based on the private agreement entered into between the claimants therein and the beneficiary, the references were got dismissed as withdrawn. Pursuant to the private arrangement, the petitioner and others chose to file a writ petition contending that they were also entitled to similar financial benefits on the basis of Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act. The said writ petition Nos.27314- 340 / 2011 (LA-KIADB) have been dismissed vide order dated 16.4.2012. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present appeal is filed. Several grounds have been urged in the appeal memo. The case is posted for preliminary hearing.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the lands of the appellant and subject matter of the lands acquired in LAC Nos.202/2006, 207/2006 and 208/2006 are acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose, any compensation paid to the adjoining owners in the reference court will have to be paid to the appellant. He further contends that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the case of the parties properly and that provisions of Section 28 A of the Land Acquisition Act have not been considered properly. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.â
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the only point to be considered is as follows:-
"Whether the learned Single Judge is justified in not exercising the discretion vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend the same monetary benefit granted to the claimants by way of private agreement in LAC reference to this appellant by invoking Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act of 1894?"
7. It is not in dispute that the appellant, along with other writ petitioners were parties to the consent award. When the parties, have agreed for a consent award and chose to receive the compensation pursuant to the consent award, writ petitioners are not entitled to seek the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "Act").
8. Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act 1894, applies only to such persons who have not sought for reference under section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act, even after the receipt of award notice.â
Such landowners can avail the benefit of enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court to similarly placed claimants subject, of course, to invoke Section 28-A within 3 months from the date of the first award relating to lands acquired under the same notification and for the same purpose. Hence it is useful to refer to Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the same is as follows:-
"28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. -
(1) where in an award under this part, the court allows tc the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the some notification under section 4, sub-section (1) arid who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court:
Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.
(2)Â The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants.
(3)Â Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, required that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.
9. It is no doubt true that Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act has been introduced to give benefit to the land losers who have not sought for reference under Section 18 of the Act for various reasons and to set right the anomaly between the two land losers. Section 28-A of the Act can be invoked only by a land loser who has not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and such application should be filed within 3 months from the determination of market value by the reference Court or Land Acquisition Co art.
10. It is not in dispute that parties who have got settled their compensation by consent award have no right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Act. If the land owners, whose lands were acquired under the same notification have given consent to pass a consent award and received the compensation, in such circumstances, no one can invoke provisions of Section 18 of the Act to seek reference. In other words, consent award would become final and conclusive the moment compensation is paid by the beneficiaries/acquisition body to the landlosers.â
11. On perusal of Section 28-A of the Act and in the background of the private settlement arrived at by the claimants and beneficiary and getting LAC Nos.202/2006, 207/2006 and 208/2006 dismissed as withdrawn, we are of view that- there is no determination of market value by the reference court in the aforesaid 3 land acquisition cases. Section 28- A of the Act can be invoked by the person who has not sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. If the claimants and beneficiary/ acquiring body had entered into compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and the same had been accepted, it could have been considered as determination of market value. The private arrangement entered into between claimants and beneficiary that too without acquiring body being a party to such arrangement, cannot be considered as 'determination' within the purview of Section 18 or 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
12. The appellant cannot seek reference under Section 18 of the Act just because he has received the compensation pursuant to the consent award. Secondly there is no determination of market value under Section 18 of the Act in order to consider his case by applying the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act.
13. Viewed from any angle, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. We see no error in the order in question.
14. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.