Case Note & Summary
The appellants were owners of lands bearing Survey Nos.304/2A and 304/2B, measuring 11 acres 24 guntas, situated at Mahalbagayat, Vijayapura. The lands were acquired by the Bijapura Urban Development Authority (BUDA) for formation of a residential layout vide preliminary notification dated 22.05.2000 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Officer passed a general award on 05.09.2003, fixing compensation at Rs.90,000 per acre. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act by filing Misc.P.No.23/2008, which was allowed on 09.04.2010, leading to registration of LAC No.28/2010. The appellants contended that the lands were within city limits, amidst developed residential colonies, and should have been valued on square foot basis at Rs.400-500 per sq.ft., but they were not given notice or opportunity to object. The respondent BUDA claimed that a settlement had been reached: in a meeting on 09.08.2005, it was agreed that the appellants would be paid Rs.10,00,000 per acre plus one site of 30ft x 40ft per acre in full and final settlement, and that the appellants had withdrawn their writ petitions challenging the acquisition and executed consent. The State Government approved the settlement on 16.02.2006. The appellants executed a power of attorney, submitted acceptance letters and affidavits, and received total payments of Rs.82,46,368 (including the earlier award amount). The Reference Court, by judgment dated 13.07.2017, dismissed the reference petition as not maintainable, holding that there was a settlement and the appellants had accepted the amount. The High Court, in earlier civil revision petition No.2005/2011, had kept all contentions open for the Reference Court to examine the validity of the settlement. In the present appeal, the appellants contended that the Reference Court erred in not considering that once a general award is passed, no consent award could be made; that the alleged settlement was not in accordance with Section 35 of the KUDA Act as it lacked prior government approval; and that any settlement must comply with Order 23 CPC, requiring judicial scrutiny of its lawfulness. The High Court found that the Reference Court had failed to advert to these legal and factual aspects and, consequently, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to frame appropriate issues and decide the reference in accordance with law after affording opportunities to both parties.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Reference under Section 18 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 4(1), 11, 18, 53 - Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1984 Sections 35, 36 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 23 - The land owners sought reference for enhancement of compensation after the Land Acquisition Officer passed a general award; the Reference Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable on the premise of a settlement and payment of additional compensation by the acquiring authority. In appeal, the High Court observed that the Reference Court failed to examine whether the alleged settlement was lawful and in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions, including the requirement of prior government approval under Section 35 of the KUDA Act and the mandate of Order 23 CPC. Held that the matter required fresh consideration with proper framing of issues and opportunities for evidence. (Paras 7-13) B) Land Acquisition - Mode of Acquisition - KUDA Act, 1984 Sections 35 and 36 - Once the authority opted to acquire land under Section 36 of the KUDA Act, it could not thereafter revert to Section 35 to enter into a consent award without prior government approval, which was not obtained in the present case. The settlement thus lacked legal sanction. (Paras 13-15) C) Civil Procedure - Compromise of Suit - Order 23 CPC - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 53 - The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order 23, are applicable to proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act by virtue of Section 53 thereof; any settlement must be recorded in writing and the court must satisfy itself as to the lawfulness of the consideration and enforceability of the agreement. The Reference Court omitted to consider this mandatory requirement. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court was justified in dismissing the reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of a settlement between the parties, without examining the legality of the settlement and compliance with statutory provisions.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 13.07.2017 passed in LAC No.28/2010 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayapura is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with a direction to frame appropriate issues, examine the validity of the settlement, and decide the reference after affording opportunities to both parties.
Law Points
- land acquisition compensation
- settlement under Land Acquisition Act
- applicability of CPC
- KUDA Act Sections 35 and 36
- reference under Section 18
- consent award
