ORDER
N.K. Patil, J.
1. Petitioners in all these twenty Civil Revision Petitions, being aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 28.2.2008 passed in Execution Nos. 72/04, 73/04, 74/04, 75/04, 76/04, 71/04, 77/04, 78/04, 79/04, 80/04,, 81/04, 82/04, 83/04, 84/04, 85/04, 86/04, 87/04, 88/04, 89/04 and 90/04 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC, Athani, Belgaum District, have presented the instant Revision Petitions.
2. In all these 20 cases, the petitioners herein contended that, the respondent have taken the possession of their lands as early as on 25.3.1973 before issuing preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as ‘Act’). The competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act has issued preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and the same was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 3.1.1985. The award has been passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27.3.1989. Not being satisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and on the ground that, the compensation awarded is inadequate, petitioners were constrained to file the application under Section 18 of the Act for reference to the jurisdictional court for enhancement of compensation. The jurisdictional civil court, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 54,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the enhanced amount by the reference court, all these petitioners who are the landowners, have filed Miscellaneous First Appeals before this Court.
3. This Court, after hearing both the parties and after re-appreciating the documentary evidence and taking into consideration the purpose for which the lands were notified and acquired, has allowed the appeals and further enhanced the market value at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre. Therefore, petitioners have contended that, the judgment and award passed by this Court are binding and conclusive. The further case of the petitioners is that, they have filed the Execution Petition Nos. 72/04, 73/04, 74/04, 75/04, 76/04, 71/04, 77/04, 78/04, 79/04, 80/04, 81/04, 83/04.. 83/04, 84/04, 85/04, 86/04, 87/04, 88/04, 89/04 and 90/04 for executing the said judgment and award passed by this Court in Miscellaneous First Appeals respectively, contending specifically that, the benefits as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act have not been extended from the date of taking possession, of the land in question before issuing 4(1) Notification (for the period between taking possession of the lands and the issuance of 4(1) Notification).
4. The execution petitions filed by the petitioners had come up for consideration before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. DEL.), Athani. The Court below allowed the said petitions and directed the respondent to pay the arrears of compensation to the petitioners as per the judgment arid award passed by this Court with statutory benefits from the date of 4(1) Notification to the date of award end interest on 30% solarium and 12% additional market value as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Channajrajamanni v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2004 AIR SCW 1629 relied upon in the case of M. Gangappa v. The D.C., Shimoga and Ors. reported in ILR 2004 KAR 4397. But the Execution Court has not extended the benefits as provided under the statute, to the petitioners/land owners from the date of 25.3.1973 to 2.1.1985 (from the date of taking possession till the date of issuing preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act) and it is in relation to this denial that the petitioners are before this, court in these revision petitions.
5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appealing for the respondent for considerable length of time.
6. After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Execution Court, as referred above, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the Execution Court in allowing the Execution Petitions filed by the petitioners and extending the petitioners the benefit of relief under the statute. However, in so far as the claim made by the petitioners for taking possession from 25-3.1973 to 2.1.1965 in the Execution Petition is concerned, the Execution Court is not competent to decide the redressal of the grievances made by the petitioners. The only option open to the petitioners is to make necessary applications either before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the Deputy Commissioner for redress al of their grievances in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by LRS. v. D.D.A. and Ors. , wherein the apex court has held that, where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary Notification, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. Therefore, it is needless to clarify that the petitioners are entitled for rent or damages for use of the lands by the beneficiary or the competent authorities, Therefore, it is very much open for these petitioners to submit their consolidated representation producing thereto, the authenticated documents to establish that the possession of the lands have been taken as early as on 23.3.1973 though preliminary Notification was issued on 3.1.1985.
7. With the above clarification, the revision petitions are disposed off reserving liberty to all these petitioners to redress their grievances before proper jurisdictional authority of the respondent by way of submitting proper applications placing reliance on Judgments of the Apex Court and this Court and also producing necessary authenticated documents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. In case such representations are submitted by these petitioners, the jurisdictional competent authority of the respondent is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders in strict compliance o£ the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and following the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, as referred above and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representations, to be submitted by these petitioners.