@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.S. Bopanna, J.@mdashThe petitioner-Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider their representations as at Annexures-D, E and F and to take action to hand over the actual vacant possession of the acquired land mentioned in the schedule. Respondents 1 to 3 had initiated acquisition proceedings for acquiring land for the benefit of the petitioners for establishing their Refinery in Kuttattur Village, Mangalore Taluk. The total extent of the land which had been acquired for their benefit also included the land measuring 14.27 acres in Sy. Nos. 58/1, 92/1, 92/2 and 58/3 to which the present petitions are confined to. Respondents 4 and 5 herein are the owners of the said property.
2. The petitioners contend that for implementing their project fully, the possession of the lands mentioned above is also to be handed over to them. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the same, respondents 4 and 5 have continued to hold the possession of the said properties and respondents 1 to 3 have not taken appropriate steps to hand over possession of the said properties to the petitioners. It is in that view, the petitioners have made their representations as at Annexures-D, E and F to direct the respondents to hand over possession of the properties to them.
3. The respondents have filed their respective objection statements. Insofar as the fact that the properties to which the reference is made in the petitions is also a part of the acquisition proceedings for the benefit of the petitioners is not in dispute. The relevant aspect from the objection statement filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 would disclose that though they are the owners of the properties, they have not in fact assailed the acquisition notification. A perusal of the averments made in their objection statement would indicate that their grievance is that the compensation which was to be paid to them has not been paid. In that regard, it is also stated in the objection statement that the petitioners instead of approaching respondent 3 to pay the compensation, have filed the instant petitions which are not sustainable. Therefore, the issue essentially is that the payment of compensation if paid to respondents 4 and 5 would also settle the matter with regard to handing over of possession to the petitioners. Respondent 3 no doubt in their objection statement have indicated that the possession has been handed over, but if such possession in fact was given, the petitioners would not have had any grievance.
4. In the light of the same, what is necessary to be noticed is that despite the contention of the official respondents that the possession has been handed over, respondents 4 and 5 continues to contend that the relief prayed by the petitioners cannot be granted since they have not been adequately compensated which indicates that physical possession is not given. On the aspect of compensation, it is necessary to notice that respondents 4 and 5 were before the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in CCC Nos. 804 and 805 of 2014 (Civil). A perusal of the said order would disclose that the aspect relating to the compensation as claimed by respondents 4 and 5 had been adverted and the fact that respondents 4 and 5 were making out a grievance with regard to inadequacy of the compensation awarded was also taken note and the Hon''ble Division Bench closed the proceedings with a direction to send reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (''the Act'' for short) to the Reference Court for proper adjudication of the market value. This would indicate that the grievance of respondents 4 and 5 relating to appropriate compensation in any event would stand redressed if the Reference Court considers the request for enhancement of compensation in accordance with law.
5. In such situation, when the acquisition proceedings has been taken out by respondents 2 and 3 to the stage of passing award and also the compensation awarded at the first instance being paid to respondents 4 and 5 and further when there is a direction with regard to the reference to be made in respect of the enhancement of compensation, the grievance of respondents 4 and 5 or objection on their part to part with the possession of the property would not arise at this juncture. Therefore, all that is necessary to be done by respondents 1 to 3 is to proceed in accordance with law to secure possession of the properties and hand over the same to the beneficiary.
6. Learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 in addition to contending that they have not been adequately compensated would also contend that all the persons whose properties have been acquired have not been made parties to the instant petitions and therefore, the petitions are bad for non-joinder of parties.
7. Insofar as that aspect of the matter, the issue is only that the petitioners are seeking possession of the properties that had been acquired. It is in that regard, the representations have been made. While considering the representations, the statutory respondents certainly would have to take note of the fact against whom the award had been passed and such of those persons would have to be paid compensation and if there is a protest petition, even in respect of such persons, reference would have to be made under Section 18 of the Act. Those are the aspects which are required to be taken into consideration by respondents 1 to 3 in that regard.
8. The consideration for the present is only that on payment of compensation as per the award, the further proceedings as contemplated under Section 16 of the Act would have to be completed by respondents 1 to 3 and the enhancement would take place as per law. It is in that regard, the representations as made by the petitioners at Annexures-D, E and F will have to be taken into consideration by respondent 3 and possession will have to be given to them. Insofar as respondents 4 and 5 to the extent of the award made, the amount has been paid. It is only with regard to enhancement of the compensation, reference is to be made and in that regard, the Hon''ble Division Bench has already directed the same. Therefore, respondent 3 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners and before handing over possession to the petitioners, they shall also make sure that the amount as awarded by them has been paid to the landowners and thereafter the possession shall be handed over to the petitioners. The consideration shall be made by the KIADB in the manner as indicated above by paying the awarded compensation to the landowners within four weeks from the date on which a copy is furnished and thereafter the possession shall be handed over to the petitioners within the next period of four weeks.
In terms of the above, the petitions stand disposed of.
