£s_y<%s#: * ifsefiil ma:
,,..:.
xx rag area sonar §E~KAfiNA£$Kg ' '
cxncuxm BENCH Am fiaaéfifib
QATED $313 gag 2?$a QAx §FA£HGUS$ 3GQ8~-.'
?RE3E:1??_§'~._
asxxgzg mas Svéwggg fiA§$uflA cgELLva
aaiwgggg
Tfie 3peaig;'Lafi§_§¢quié:t1on
Gfficer, Hiékél Dam Prbject,
n:¢ga1gLfiukkerz"ma1uk?
J'a§eA§aum,$istrictL"** ****
.* Appellant
'VA§fl:
};; Ex; L.B.Qesai;
'Ag*a: "rzaéori
.1gGcci"£and~lorfi, by his
-a Eafiex of Attarney Koiarf
, "$ri,Shankariingaaaa KW@ޤ
J~&gé: $5 gears,
Gas: serviceg
fifa fihikaéi,
Eeigaum.§istriatv
the Act befoga the Civil Judge 3_§§é§;§§;f.
ccpensatian. The applicat;on fiie& undgr_"
sections 30 and 31 aame E9 bg34fi§fifiéré¢},a&
LA: 196!1984. on 24.7.35;.;his%§§p1ica£;§§Lcfimfi'
ta be diamissed ab$e§§i%§ _Vtfiét:fl'£h§ V%ery
application is not m%intaifi%§#¢{fi5 it fiéé not on
a reference fra the @a$§ $$Qfiiéfit§g% officer and
held that a;.a§;eth§ §é¢ds §é:e §a§tea with the
Qavernmentifi@$?fi§g@"§n%fim§@f§nae, the only right
available=t§ %§$§&an&@§fi&;f§:;%r sectian &4{?) of
the Kaggatgkg :§g§$§§§iy§ Act, 1951 and not for
any' 0thég " géfiyéfigafiion. it is note&. that
gg., _ <~ -
_ LAQfi¢2X§5 cama' to be filed by tke first
'R _ V .....
"V, §aap6ndéfitg4q1aimants chaiienging the ordars af
A&he{¢ivi1 ;fi§gé in LAC.1§6f1§§4 dated 24.7.1935.
_,, go&&ver,'t$§ said Appeal came to b dismissed far
"g ncn-Pkéaficutiefi.
V" VV*§. Maaawhile, as the application filed under
* sé§t£¢n 18(1) af the L& Amt was not xeferred ta
'af£$e sivzl gaurt within the statutory periadg
i?
/
/
8.3.94 was not challenged by the State GQVQ£#mEfi%ud
and it has reached finality.
5. Thereafter; ms' .19/3¢s"--_V ¢axua"V'--v_%fw
registered by virtue of thaJGrdef£;;fi,Lgc?2}§8 on
3G.8.94. In this LAc.19/,94,."" ti$eLA.appéxmmé-state
fileé objections re-itéra£ifi@ftfié:s§me cbjectiens
as stated in LAC:2fl933;:1?h§f1e$rfié$ Judge after
giving op§$$tfini;g*,5t6 i b§th' the parties,
ultimat-z-::1y LA§:';~.i9Z'94~»~V-piézrtly enhancing the
canpea.-iezticn V as» "Asgard dated 5 . as. 3.995.
._£; Aggriévéfi bfi the gala order and the Award
v _ %f.fi§a¥iéafingd civil Judge, tbis appeal cme to
Ab&'fiieé7g§n£efiding that the reference Court was
neat "'«.T}11.S1"';iiAf;i;5é2A<T3. in éireczting the xeference {:43 be
Z"E regi5tér§& and further, there was xx: scqge fur
x<."éghafi§ament o£ cmpansation, as the ¢laimant3
V'- we£e net at all entitled for any aoupensation, in
figiew of tha Lamas being vested with the
IG
af acquisitian, therefore, they were entitled to
anly for the benefits available to then: gfifiéx
Km'. Lawxai Ra 'cm'\'v'1»'3 ' L.
section 47 0f thekfict and not ether bene£;tg;§g_f; <
12* Apparently, the State @ovgpfiment -h2s :
aise not challanged the er6é£é*adated 3,3§§4.W
diracting the Lao to refer :tpé; mat£¢g;. wfiiéh *
ultimately was registered'i§pLAC:i9{9§Q5$§§Mfé@t
remains in LA£.2/88 tge ag§e@§an%¢st§£e=did raise
the question of iimitg£§¢# %§§ so also
naintainabilityvgg tgé"a§§1ia§:@$n fig Qiew af the
erders in §A&fl1§§f84Eufié%rk$3c§§§§é 38 and 31 of
the £otiHV:g?é%%§c£§{ $fi飧érEi§ tha absence of
¢ha11en§in§ " %§e': or§¢%g .;ig £AC.2/1988 dated
8.3.1994; the Stgfig §¢fii& agitate the questisn cf
mintanabii1:ty»7anaJ'§eating of the lands with
' "the"§5vernmnt as héid in Lac 196/1984.
\'\\f\
matter, whafi wauii be the sonsequanaes 6f &S&Ch
deaisien mafia by such Court; ?ar this; w§x%¢fg£_
in the follcying deaisians:
1.
In the case ef £jmdh”§&jugad ¢fifi§ng’ ‘ &
vs, Mbti g/a Ehssadi ,xg§oz;ed*-in;_w»T
19§l{3§ SSC136 ra§¢rte&Vas_under;’*
“5. The prine:p1g*,£a: “¢ac:¢iggIj”
the questian oi iimitéticn in a.suit
fiieé after an adverse érfler undér_aHf
spacial Act is sa11;sett1gd;:’1£ the
order impugned in the $uit”i§.such
fihafi it has ta bé sét aside héfore
any relief aan””baf grantafilafib’ the
§lainti£f the grgvigigfigfqf értiala
166 viii Fae ,éttra¢tafi ‘afi&” if me
particular”a®tié;&”Qf”the.Limitation
Act z$–ag§licabie thé sait must be
gswernéd by .thea ra§ifiméry Article
113, pres¢xibingga_peria& of three
yaars§V *Thereféxé; in a suit fer
title to’afi.immwvéb£e prcperty which
has ibéen “iha “gubjeat matter of a
§r¢ceéfiing_unéar a special Act if an
yg_afiver$e”‘Q:der mamas in the way of
‘the suceess”uf the plaintiff he must
._ get _it_ clearad before praceeding
*V£u;tné:;a On the other hané if the
_’ar§éx . has been passed without
. *Vjuri§éiétion, the same aan ba
*, igneréd as nullity, that is; ncnw
existent in tfie eye of law and it is
ant necesaary to set it aside; and
A’*,_$uch a suit will be ccvered by
férticle 65. In th& present case the
“cantraversial facts have been
decidéfi in faveur of the plaintififi W
agpaliant and the fiindings were nct
cha;1$ngad beficra the fiigh Caurta
fhe pogitiafi, thus, is that the
§3aifiti§f was the gamer in
aultivating possesg®ma afi the land
anfi tha dafenfiant fiat: %a§ marely 3
labcmrar withaut any gight cf a
arda: mafia by fiha
tenant or a sub–teaant. The
questicn is as to whether in this
baakground it is neaessary to setw V
asiée the arder passad in fiavcur ¢fi
the xespandent unéer Section 2?{é}
9f the %ct before the suit cad”b§>’V.
dacreeé or fihefifier thé piaififiiffi can*_
get a decrae igncring thg Saifildrfiar’
in which casé the sfiit=_,
undéahtedly will Vb¢_ gcvarnéfi b3A
as void;
Axticle 65*
?, The casea re1;e$ a§bn b§”fih§ _}
High Court dd: net suppdrt the
impugned judgment’ iifi S%ate V.
Sadh Ram the ¢ompenséti¢n_V¢££icer
had passed an brd§r’under;Sé£tion
27(4) af the Rat? irafisfiaxrifig the
propriéta:y_..vCright__av to”” the
cultivating” ten§ntm_”¢f the land,
excludiflg{_ the “fl’tré@sf standing
tfieraofi, “Ehe’&.Eran§ferée tenants
fiiied *a,1su;t. in respect of the
Erees, and the Hi§h Ceurt held that
the suit was fiarrafi by imitation
&itfia:Vund¢r:Rrtic1e 166 or Article
113. ‘ The_grievance af the tenant
_§waE act against the exerciaa sf the
‘§gwer cf ‘fiha” Camyensatian effiaer
under gfiéctian 2?{4} of the Rat,
°= :a:h¢rx he reiied upan thé same.
-.’ThégQb§éf¥afiiQn$, mentianed beigw,
” from jtfie ‘judgment cf Fathak, C,3.
€33’ he fihen was} are énlightening
‘ afifi. gugparting tha View expregfieé
kyffisz
“This ig mat a case whare the
campengatian
cfficer is a nuility. If the
csmpansatisn affiaer haé ab initie
ma jurfigfiictian ts taka the
prasaading 33$ make an arder
therein, ha gauld fiave ma
juxigfiiaiicn ta make any Qrfier at
313% Ia thgt avent; tha antire
arfigr mafia hy fiim, ifl$1§éifi§ that
.91;
1%
thereunder} {maid it turn back: and say
:s.L*::q:.g§.;_ ‘ ‘ i
aaqzzired was wrang as the land has;uvua$t:é$ug§VV’:駒i~€::}3i*’-T ‘
the Governmarat .
Gmzernment, questien cf acqi:-.iri’:”sg” this giienx
would not ariaa. As a é£1a?:fc:er :x_f’ fa”‘c,?ér;a;Vna;}'”c;fi¢§ti§gn ever
azércse befcara the énjfi; of the
alleged tenants cg £pé filgggggéé had made
applicaticsn ;’i£éf§; }’gra:;2._t <}<.§;'§#:I:.;'l%.¥'.:§fi;£'.1af..L'¢f1§';,§'1'L'?§.gI'l't.$. It is
not even 'a%.V§p'é1I.ant State that
saw}: :a':';"é' tenant under the
1anci3.e:i;*;;i." Qf an ebservatior:
made "é§'r2q:.1is3'.'1::i.z::x2 Gfficeer in the
m:°i.g3:§;,;':a3; awaré'd–,afgt gara 3 that compensation eeuld
be.§3ai¢iV..tgA '*~such 3f the perseng an groducticsn bf
'"g_z*éa{zf;:.'; V<s§'g,:;cc';§§ancy rights firom the iganzfi firibmaaza,
thé"'«..ap§;é§;-But Stata has came up with the dafarace
"3gAfva.sting sf ianda with the Government 35 they
';$2;'€*;'b'5;Z%3iafit&d lands. Thay alga place reliance an
tfge entries in 'him RTQ axtracts which are new
prafizzeed by way of aéaitimnsi evidenaa at Exsk
$.12 ta 3.18.
:5 the 1and__be:éfi§sf}t5′ the_u
reacrd sack aviéence if they want&d ¢ to
substantiate their defence of vestia§V 5£f;fihaifl
lands with them. We rely upog reporte&fdéci2;¢§ =
in the case cf 3mt.Sanjivi Q Laxmi}§fim$ %:>3tafi§
af Kannatafita reported in *l.Q”§5 k:;2_} –:§z. w%«a”s:.&;:¢¢ _v’ the State
Gavernmenfi? ff§aflflf§¢%¢§é§fiQ the subject mattar
cf’ dis§ut¢fu$égfi§a§-fit#éfi Eandiord and the’ persen
claimkngrta 5% é t§fi$§t, has to be fietermined by
the Tribfifi§l_é£ £fi%°%§%§ threshold sf the enquixy
befqiéutakifig_fi#er:tha quastian af registration
of £heafiefiént$ as ocaupantss In that View of the
*mattér;Tm¢rérehtries in tha name cf third parties
ifiwthgvééififin 12 afi ETC extracta as on i.3.1§?4
=¢r pfifir ta gaid fiate will not ha cf any
a3§i$tafice E6 the state ta cantend that all the
U lands in questimn vested with the Savernment as
\.r’*»»
they gate tenantefi lauds. Sa far as the legal
pssition that the Gw¥ernment canfiat acquire its
awn Zané; fié refer ta faiiawing decisions:
is fiat tfié subject
“,?here£dfe, in View
Nwfw
353
way af the claimants seeking reference af the
application under Sacticn iS{§§ af the Act. As a
mattex of fact, aa notad above, applicatieg’§fifiar
Sactisn laili %&$ much earlier in tfie fififiliéaiiafi.
filed under fiectian 33. We h$ve7§I§o1a1fa$df §e@§
that either dug to ignbrénce A63′ infiQ¢efice,.’the’v’
applicants have fified apgiifiatécn. un@§;”}Section
33. . V ‘
2%. Wé alaé n¢§¢f £?%§: %héD7feccrdS that
fiuring the §é§§%§cg ¢f $h§$ %§p&%l, theta was a
fiirectien§§eifi§$$§i£ §S;§§;fi§,§G3f~ in the Caurt
§art Iéfi” i§é ,¢§é§é#%3£?9n\ 駧rded, Wé aise hate
that §hg:«Léndat§¢qfii§i£ion fifficer unfartunately
issuefi a é;h&7q1:e’ .iA:*._ Vféxrazzr of the party but the
“u ch&§Ee_#a$ difécfily given to the parties without
;’de§ositinqMihe same in the court, However, we are
n¢£Vgein§ji§fio the said centzovarsy as the same
matter sf dispute before usfi
oi tke above disaussien, we
£¢i§ that the crdars fiatafi 2€.?,19$é in Léfi
H’~§é,1§EfSé is mat an embargc an the right 9f the
claimants ta seek enh&ncament af aampengatzen.
2€. Then to anothar
coming
factual
contreversy raised by the appellant Statét*fih§£,
the ETC relied upon by the claimants héf¢r$ £hé”:’
Reference Ccurt da not xef1ectmt§e«a§£fi§1@¢fi£r§§a ”
with regard ta the nature of crépfi Qrcfifi it fi§é
ralevant point at time’igé{, i9?§w?8g é§ai$a§t§
contendefi before thg Raf§%én¢e §c§f§u$ur§ng the
enquiry fior enhanaém§$t_§f y§fipéfi$a§ianA£$at they
were growing sugar ¢an§ i$ fihé i駧§Facquirsd as
an the datgfi§fFéfie}im$fiéiyTfi§§§fié$tisn and finai
n:3*1tificat:’:<:§n "§:a%': :égd£ically denied by
the fififiééy=fificfi@§ef;RQtha§ "&;d not produce any
documefité«.Ee£§¥é £h§* §e§arenee Ceurt when the
enquiry gas canfiufifiéa prior ta the State ccming
w_ befi§£& £his fifiuxhvin an apgeal. Even after the
g'rémaqfi, f¢rr<the iimited purpose of reacrding
adfiiti§n§1= é%idenae they have net brought any
mat%:ié1'fi§ show that the entries at Ex$.§.é to
§::a.__wi%h regard to the nature of cxep grmm at
\\£\
3ihé°re1avant paint af time wag an inter§e1atian
'~~¢f recard.
2?, fin tha ather hand; whan §& ga ta the
csnfiants sf Exa§.§ ta §.i8 praéucefi ky tfifi fitata
\n-
3?
fiavarnment, we are §ur§rised to gee bath the
Xerex capxeg ané ariginais af Exs. Q24 ta $.18
mat having entries ofi any nature at ca1umg,i2 so
far as relevant periad 1.a., 19??~?8fi:W”ffi§{f£§
1§?4~?5 the entries are therééa§&Vs£rafigél§;’tfi5:
antries are from 1§3§«9C i§ sama casé_ifi age or–.”
two RTC and in nthers it is sgbs#§u%§£ fifi 19§2«
93. In that View §fi thé:m§%£éx? i§ doésunat lie
in the mouth Qfi thg §§§e§ia#t%§£#§§ to say that
the ¢:aiman:s”g§¢e %is;ééd*£§§’c§fi£ts by bringing
an xecord §i§ §i£h:§fiflfie%–§§dé by them suitably
suppa;iifigi£§¢i§fci§§@; §fiéfé§Gre, we are af the
o§ini§fi ‘thafifi £§eR’R§CLj§fi€racts prcducad by the
cla:mant§>,§ef®f& 7tha;7Raferenc@ Ccurt. marked at
a. EX$;?.% ta ?;1$w§$e genuine and certified cepias
E*–; géth
.&f»th$Aar£§ina1s. 6n the other fianfi, the State
;§ gai*§k;_%;§o3iti$n to establish any aspect cf
théir ,§é£éfice to substantiate their cententioa
. a th§t thé claimant did nat gxaw sugar cane craps
‘§urifi§ thé relgvant pericd 1§7?~?8 the yaar of
greiiminary notifiaatiea and final
aaquigitien nmtifiaations. In that View ef the
matter; having regarfi ta the entire mafiarial as a
fihale, we are af the a§ini@n that the a§§a1lant