@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
A.S. Bopanna, J.@mdashThe petitioner is before this court assailing the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner (LAO), Shimoga, dated 15.2.2013, impugned at Annexure-K to the petition. Consequent thereto the petitioner is seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the Asst. Commissioner(LAO) to refer the matter u/s. 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the Senior Civil Judge, Shimoga, so as to determine the market value.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing Sy. No. 3/1 of Malligenahalli village, Shimoga Taluk, measuring 2 acres. The said property is stated to have been acquired by the respondents by issuance of Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequent thereto, notice under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and ultimately the acquisition has been completed. The issue presently is with regard to the compensation that has been determined and paid to the petitioner and as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to seek for the relief of enhancement of the amount by seeking reference as provided u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application filed by the petitioner seeking reference has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner (LAO) by recording in the proceedings dated 5.2.2013 that the compensation paid to the petitioner is under a consent award and therefore, the application cannot be considered.
3. The respondents have filed their statement of objections. In fact a similar contention has been taken in the objection statement stating that while acquiring the lands from several land owners for the said purpose, the compensation has been determined on consent of the land owners and ultimately the amount has been determined.
4. It is contended that even in the case of the petitioner, such compensation by consent had been determined and when part payment of the compensation was made, a security bond had been executed by the petitioner to receive the said amount and an agreement had also been entered. It is therefore contended that when compensation has been determined and paid with the consent of the petitioner, the subsequent application seeking reference for the purpose of seeking enhancement would not arise. Hence, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Having noticed the rival contentions, it is seen that the petitioner is before this court contending that he has not consented to the amount, but on the other hand has throughout brought to the notice of the respondents that the market value of the land is much more than what is being offered and therefore an appropriate determination of the compensation had been sought. It is pointed out that the security bond executed at Annexure-E is only for the purpose of receiving part of the amount which was payable to the petitioner. It is also shown that the alleged document relied upon by the respondents as at Annexure-F is not a concluded contract as all particulars have not been filled up nor has LAO signed the said document.
6. Taking note of this aspect, what is also to be kept in view is that the communications addressed by the petitioner to the LAO as at Annexures-C and D would disclose that the petitioner was contending with regard to the higher value of the property. No doubt, the said communications are prior to the payment of portion of the amount. Even in that view, if the security bond executed by the petitioner at Annexure-E is noticed, the same does not make any reference to the consent award but the same is styled as security bond executed for receiving a part of the compensation. As contended, the form of agreement does not indicate that it is a concluded agreement between the parties as signatures are not forthcoming and the details have not been indicated. Even if the contention of; the respondents that there was agreement between the parties, but since many land losers were to be compensated and procedure had to be followed and therefore there are certain lacuna in the agreement is taken into consideration, even then the same would not conclude the issue for the reason that the notice issued u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure-G) to the petition does not make reference to any consent agreement having been passed and the amount indicted therein being offered to the petitioner in that regard.
7. Further when the compensation was sought to be disbursed and the signature of the petitioner was obtained in the register, the petitioner on 5.12.2012 has recorded therein that the petitioner has not consented to the quantum of the amount indicated therein. Despite such protest being recorded therein, no further steps had been taken by the respondents to indicate that the amount as determined is being withheld from payment to the petitioner and a fresh general award was passed thereafter. In that light the application made by the petitioner dated 29.1.2013 making detailed reference to all aspects of the matter and seeking reference for the purpose of consideration of the appropriate market value could not have been rejected only on the ground that there is a consent award. When no such concluded award is made nor agreement entered.
8. As noticed, in the instant case "neither a concluded consent award nor a general award is placed on record. Therefore, considering the fact that the notice issued u/s 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and the payment register does not refer to either of them, the appropriate course is for the reference court to determine the appropriate market value in respect of the property in question since in the instant case the petitioner has made the representation immediately after the amount as determined by the respondents was paid to him and he had recorded his protest thereof while receiving the amount.
9. Therefore, the order impugned dated 15.2.2013 is quashed. The 3rd respondent LAO is directed to refer the application filed by the petitioner along with all the records as contemplated u/s 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Shimoga, who may thereafter register the reference, issue notice to all the parties and determine the market value in accordance with law.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
