ORDER
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
Page 1798
1. Common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making in these petitions, with the consent of the learned AGA for the petitioner, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Respondents though served with notice of the petitions, have remained absent and are unrepresented.
3. Facts not in dispute are:
The state in exercise of eminent domain power, acquired immovable properties being house sites with buildings belonging to the respondents, amongst others, to wit for Upper Krishna Project, by issuing notifications under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short ‘Act’. One of the persons interested, aggrieved by the determination of the market value in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer had his representation referred to the Civil Court for higher compensation which when numbered as LAC No. 999/1999 was clubbed with four other reference applications of other interested persons, and the Civil Court, by judgment and award dated 8-6-2004 determined the market value and enhanced the compensation by 50%. Respondents herein, though, did not seek reference of their disputes for enhancement of compensation, to the Civil Court, nevertheless filed representations dated 19.7.2004 and 8-9-2004 acknowledged by the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determination of the compensation, under Section 28A of the Act, indisputably, within the period of limitation, which when not responded to, by an enquiry and notices to all persons interested as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A, impelled the respondents to file petitions invoking the jurisdiction of the civil court, under Sub-section (3) of Section 18 read with Section 28-A of the Act, for reference to the Civil Court of their representations for re-determination of the compensation. In the said proceeding, the Land Acquisition Officer entered appearance and filed Statement of objections interalia contending that the petitions were not maintainable as Section 28A invested a jurisdiction in the Land Acquisition Officer to consider, hold an enquiry, extend opportunity to the persons interested and pass orders on the claims for re-determination of compensation. Despite such a contention being advanced, strangely during the entire proceedings, the Land Acquisition Officer did not exercise a jurisdiction vested in him. The Civil Court, by the orders impugned directed the Land Acquisition Officer to forward the applications filed under Section 28-A of the Act for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the judgment and award in LAC No. 999/1999. Hence, these Revision petitions.
4. Smt. Akkamahadevi, learned AGA is correct in her submission that the petitions filed under Section 18(3) and Section 28-A of the Act, before the Page 1799 Civil Court for transfer of the respondents’ applications under Section 28-A pending before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by way of a reference, for re-determination of the compensation by the Civil Court is incompetent and the orders impugned being without jurisdiction are non-est.
5. Section 28-A of the Act was inserted by Act 68/1984 for re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award entitling persons interested in all other lands covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) and who though aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18 for enhancement of compensation, provided written applications are filed with the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Civil Court requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Civil Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A enjoins upon the Collector to conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all “persons interested” and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. Sub-section (3) enables the applicants who do not accept the award passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A, by the Collector, to require the matter be referred by the Collector for determination by the Civil Court and in respect of which the provisions of Section 18 to 28 are made applicable to such a reference.
6. In the instant case, indisputably the respondents filed, within time, the applications for re-determination of compensation on the basis of the compensation awarded by the civil court in LAC 999/99, D.D. 8.6.2004, in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 28-A of the Act. In view of Sub-section (2) the Special Land Acquisition Officer, was duty bound to hold an enquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and re-determine the compensation, aggrieved by which the respondents could seek a reference of such application for determination by the civil court invoking the jurisdiction under Sub-section (3) of Section 28-A. The respondents aggrieved by the non-consideration of their representations for re-determination of compensation, appear to have filed the petitions to the civil court, for directions to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to refer the application to the civil court for determination. Though these petitions were not maintainable, the Civil Court, without examining the provisions of the Act, misdirected itself and assuming a jurisdiction not vested in it and allowed the respondents’ petitions, which in my opinion is a nullity.
7. The learned AGA on directions of this Court has kept present, two persons by name Subhash Gundappa Vali, and K. Nagaraj Bhat, the then Special Land Acquisition Officers during the relevant period, who have filed their respective affidavit explaining as to why no action was initiated on the respondents’ representation under Section 28-A of the Act.
8. In the affidavit of Subhash Gundappa Vali, it is stated that he held the post of Assistant Commissioner and In-charge Administrator for three Town Page 1800 Municipal Councils and one CMC and in charge of three Land Tribunals from 1-7-2006 onwards and that on 13-09-2006, he took charge as the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jamkhandi. The deponent further states that though he was interested in disposing of the applications, the legal cell of the Upper Krishna Project, by letter dated 25-10-2006, decided to file these petitions challenging the orders of the Civil Court. According to the deponent, in view of the interim order of stay dated 16.4.2006, in these petitions, he was not in a position to take any action over the applications.
9. Nagaraj Bhat in his affidavit said to be working as the Shirestedar in the Revenue Department was promoted as Special Tahsildar during December 2002 and was posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jamkhandi. The deponent states that though he was in charge of the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, on account of the heavy work and responsibility to attend to amenities to poor and needy persons as also pending civil matters before Trial Court and High Court, the applications of the respondents filed on 22-07-2004 and 15-09-2004 were not processed. It is further stated that in view of acquisition of 760 to 800 acres of land, awards were to be passed within time, yet another reason for not responding to the respondents’ applications.
10. In both the affidavits, the officers seek an unconditional apology for not having considered the respondents’ representations, immediately after they were filed.
11. The conduct of the State and its officers, one cannot but notice, the lethargy, inaction, and rank indiscipline by the officers in the discharge of duties under the Act. The failure to address the respondents’ applications under Section 28-A by the Special Land Acquisition Officer despite passage of four years from the date of filing speaks volumes of the nature of business transacted by the officer in charge of the said post and the entire hierarchy of the executive, bordering on lack of accountability and responsibility. In my opinion, the Special Land Acquisition Officer failed to discharge duties entrusted, resulting in the respondents-persons interested, driven to exasperation, from being kept away from adequate compensation for lands acquired by the State, on account of submergence due to Upper Krishna Project, filed petitions before the civil court. The duties, functions and responsibilities attached to the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, are deliberately flouted. I say deliberate because, despite receiving the applications, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declined to exercise a jurisdiction vested, in him, resulting in multiplicity of proceedings. Even during the proceedings before the Civil Court, the Special Land Acquisition Officer having contested the petitions contending that it was he who is required to consider the applications for re-determining the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act, nevertheless, failed to do so.
12. Learned AGA submits that on account of re-determination of the compensation payable to the applicants, the State will have to pay interest at the rate of 15% over the amount of compensation, (after Page 1801 redetermination) being 50% in addition to the award amount, as also on solatium. Question therefore is who should pay the said sum ? Is the State vicariously responsible for the inaction on the part of its officers or the officers personally?
13. Learned AGA submits that necessary instructions having been issued to the officer concerned to consider the respondents’ applications filed under Section 28-A, an enquiry would be initiated by issuing notices to all the persons interested, in due compliance of Sub-section (2) of Section 28-A of the Act and the proceedings concluded within two months from today.
14. The explanation offered by the officers in the affidavits referred to supra, at this stage of the proceedings, in my considered opinion are unacceptable. I think it appropriate to direct the Revenue Secretary to hold an enquiry, extend an opportunity of hearing to the officers concerned, fix the responsibility and take a decision as to whether the officers are to pay the amount towards interest noticed above, personally, and recover the same from out of their pay and emoluments. It is hoped that this would be an eye opener for the Land Acquisition Officers in the State of Karnataka to sensitize themselves to their duties and responsibilities, towards claimants who have lost their lands on account of acquisition by the State.
15. In the circumstances, these Revision petitions are allowed. The orders impugned are set-aside. The applications filed by the respondents before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Athani stand rejected as not maintainable. The Secretary, Revenue Department is directed to hold an enquiry as noticed supra, and file an action taken report with the Registrar of this Court, within four months from today.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Secretary, Revenue Department of the State.