Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were claimants in land acquisition references under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, filed an application (I.A.No.5) before the Reference Court seeking withdrawal of the references. The purpose was to avail the benefits of the newly enacted Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24, which provides for higher compensation. The Reference Court rejected the application on the ground that it had no power to permit withdrawal of the reference. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard the counsel for the petitioners, the learned HCGP for respondent No.1, and the counsel for respondent No.2. The Court observed that the Reference Court had erred in rejecting the application. It noted that the claimants had a right to withdraw the reference and that the Reference Court, being a civil court, had inherent power to allow such withdrawal. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the 2013 Act is to provide fair compensation and that the claimants should be permitted to avail its benefits. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2018, and allowed I.A.No.5, permitting the petitioners to withdraw the references.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Withdrawal of Reference - Section 24(2) proviso of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Claimants sought to withdraw reference under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to avail higher compensation under 2013 Act - Reference Court rejected application on ground that it had no power to permit withdrawal - High Court held that the Reference Court has inherent power to allow withdrawal and that the claimants should be permitted to withdraw to avail beneficial legislation - Held that the order of Reference Court is set aside and I.A.No.5 is allowed (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the application (I.A.No.5) filed by the claimants seeking withdrawal of the reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to avail the benefits of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi, and allowed I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioners, thereby permitting the withdrawal of the references.
Law Points
- Right to withdraw reference under Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 to avail higher compensation under 2013 Act
- Section 24(2) proviso of RFCTLARR Act
- 2013
- Liberal approach in allowing withdrawal of reference
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 42
Writ Petition Nos.106340-346 of 2018 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Laxmesh Putta Mutagupe for petitioners; Sri. Raja Raghavendra Naik, HCGP for R1; Sri. Ananth Hegde for R2
Smt. Radha Kom Satyanarayan Kodiya @ Radha D/o Madev Kodekelsi and others
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sirsi (U.K.) @ Assistant Commissioner, Sirsi and Manager, A.P.M.C. Siddapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Reference Court rejecting the application for withdrawal of reference in land acquisition matters.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 11.09.2018 passed on I.A.No.5 in LAC No.1/2012 and clubbed petitions, and allowing the said I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioners.
Filing Reason
The Reference Court rejected the petitioners' application seeking withdrawal of the reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to avail the benefits of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi) rejected I.A.No.5 by order dated 11.09.2018.
Issues
Whether the Reference Court has the power to permit withdrawal of a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Whether the claimants are entitled to withdraw the reference to avail the benefits of the 2013 Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that in view of the enactment of the 2013 Act and the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24, they should be permitted to withdraw the reference to avail higher compensation.
Respondents opposed the withdrawal, but the High Court did not detail their arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
The Reference Court, being a civil court, has inherent power to permit withdrawal of a reference. Claimants should be allowed to withdraw the reference to avail the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act, particularly the proviso to Section 24(2), which provides for higher compensation. The rejection of the application was erroneous.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Sirsi, wherein the interlocutory application I.A.No.5 preferred by the petitioner, who is the claimant before the Reference Court, came to be rejected by the Reference Court by order dated 11.09.2018.
The case of the petitioner is that, in view of the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ... and in the light of the proviso to sub-section 2 to Section 24 of the Act, the claimants are entitled to higher compensation.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the Reference Court was not justified in rejecting the application.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed references under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the Reference Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sirsi). They filed I.A.No.5 seeking withdrawal of the references to avail benefits under the 2013 Act. The Reference Court rejected the application on 11.09.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, which were allowed on 21.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 24(2) proviso
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
