CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG
- REVENUE COURTS TO DECIDE ON UNDISPUTED FACTS
- PRESUMPTION OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORD - HOW FAR...
- WHEN THERE IS PARTITION DISPUTE REVENUE RECORDS SH...
- Coparcenary is a creature of Hindu law and cannot ...
- TAKING POSSESSION OF ACQUIRED LAND
- REVENUE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DOCUMENT OF TITLE
- ACQUISITION AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
- JUSTICE N KUMAR OBSERVES LAND MAFIA- LEGAL ADVISOR...
- SCOPE OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN LAND ACQUISITION
- AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ITS YIELD VALUATION IN ACQUI...
- REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE DUTY BOUND TO MAKE REVENUE...
- SCOPE OF OBJECTIONS IN LAND ACQUISITION PROCEEDING...
- GOVERNMENT LAND SHALL BE DISPOSED BY ONLY PUBLIC A...
- CASE LAW ON LAND ACQUISITION LAWS
- VERIFICATION OF TITLE OF LAND - MODEL INSTRUCTIONS...
- THE KARNATAKA COURT-FEE AND SUITS VALUATION ACT, 1...
- LAND ACQUISITION OBJECTIONS - WRITTEN ARGUMENTS - ...
- ACQUISITION OBJECTIONS AND WRITTEN ARGUMENTS IN CA...
- ARGUMENTS AGAINST LAND ACQUISITION
- LAND ACQUISITION AND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION MA...
- WITHDRAWAL - REHABILITATION IN LAQ PROCEEDINGS AND...
- LAND ACQUISITION PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS AND INQUIRY...
- LAND ACQUISITION CHECK LIST AND INSTRUCTION TO AVO...
- After 5a and 6 Proceedings Several Instructions of...
- 5a Report and Hearing on 5 a Instructions
- ▼ August (25)
- ► 2011 (98)
"69A. Disposal of lands or other property belonging to the State Government by public auction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 of the Act subject to such rules as may be prescribed in this behalf the State Government or the Authorised Officer may dispose of valuable land or other property belonging to the State Government under section 67 or otherwise by public auction.
Provided that heritage sites and buildings or relics shall not be disposed under this section. (2) The Deputy Commissioner or the Authorised Officer may by order confirm the sale under sub-section (1) on the expiration of thirty days from the date of sale of the immovable property.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section valuable land means those lands which if auctioned shall fetch values far above the normal price."
G.K. Mahadevappa v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in I.L.R. 1974 Karnataka Series Page. 1351 has held that, violation of principles of natural justice vitiates the administrative decision and that, the barest minimum which ought to have been complied with by the competent authority before passing the order was to have afforded an opportunity to the interested party to have its say in the matter.
In Girias Investment ltd vs state of Karnataka 2008 (1) KarLJ 40 Justice A.J. Gunjal by considering several decisions observed as follows:- “What is the scope of personal hearing and consideration of objections fell for consideration in the case of N. Someshekar and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 1997(7) KAR.L.J. 410. It is no doubt true that the consideration of objections cannot be a mere formality. Indeed the Land Acquisition Officer is expected to apply his mind and consider the objections filed by the owners of the land. But however, the consideration of such objections, would be there, if substance is there in the objections raised by the owners of the land. If the objections filed are in the nature of the usual objections, indeed, the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be expected to consider each and every sentence. What is important is the consideration of objections in its totality. It is useful to extract the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision: It cannot be disputed that each objection raised by a land owner or person interest in the land sought to be acquired must be considered and disposed of by the Land Acquisition Officer fairly and objectively, but then that proposition of law is subject to an all important caveat viz., that the objection must be one of substance and must be stated with sufficient clarity and supportive material. The requirement of consideration of all the objections raised before the Land Acquisition Officer is not ritualistic nor would the Court interfere just because each objection raised before the Officer concerned has not been considered by him howsoever irrelevant funny or even foolish the objection may be. It is only when the Court finds that a fair and proper consideration of the objection raised may have changed the course of events that the Court may view non-consideration with concern. Where the objections am just for the sake of objections without any substance or wholly irrelevant or insufficient to outweigh the compulsions of compulsory acquisition meant to satisfy a public purpose, the failure to deal with or consider ad seriatum each objection raised would make no difference. The decision of this Court in K.S. Chandrashekhar's case, supra, relied upon by Court far the petitioners does not, in my opinion, lay down a different proposition of law. That was a case where the objection raised was that the proposed acquisition was unnecessary having regard to the fact that a vast extent of the Government land was available which was suited for satisfying the public purpose in view. Non-consideration of the said aspect by the land Acquisition Officer was considered by this Court to be improper.
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT in Ramniklal N. Bhutta and Anr. v. Stats of Maharastra and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 1236 has observed thus: Our country is now launched by upon an ambitious programme of all round economic advancement to make our economy competitive in the world market. We are anxious to attract foreign direct investment to the maximum extent. We propose to compete with China economically. We wish to attain the pace of progress achieved by some of the Asian countries referred to a "Asian Tigers". These challenges are generally in the shape of writ petitions filed in High Court. Invariably, stay of acquisition is asked for and in some case, orders by way of stay or injunction are also made. Whatever may have been the practices in the past, a time has came where the Courts should keep the larger public interest in mind while exercising their power of granting stay injunction. The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only is furtherance of interest of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. And in the matter of land acquisition for public purpose, the interests of justice and the public interest coalesce. There are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong quashing the acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress. To wit, it is ultimately a matter of balancing the competing interests. Beyond this, it is neither possible nor advisable to say. We hope and trust that these considerations will be duly borne in mind by the Courts white dealing with challenges to acquisition proceedings.
IN A CASE OF Sadashivaiah And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors ILR 2003 KAR 5088 JUSTICE N KUMAR'S OBSERVATION WILL EXPLAIN THE SUBJECT:- It is equally possible a person interested in the land and the compensation may not have notice of the acquisition proceedings or after the passing of the award one may acquire title to the property which is acquired. It is open to such a person to put forth a claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming the amount of compensation and contending that the amount of compensation awarded by him should not be paid to the persons to whom the said award sets his title. In such circumstances, it is open to the Collector to refer such dispute to the decision of the Court.
There is no period prescribed in such circumstances either for making an application by the claimant to the LAO seeking a reference or for the LAO to refer the mater to the Civil Court. It is also open to the LAO not to make any reference at all. it is left to his discretion. In which event it is for the claimant to approach Civil Court for appropriate reliefs. Section 31 of the Act deals with a situation where on making of the award under Section 11 when the collector tenders payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award and if such persons do not consent to receive it or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive compensation or as to the apportionment of it, then the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted.
Therefore, this provision makes it clear the Land Acquisition Officer has the absolute power to award compensation and also to apportion the compensation awarded. But once there is a dispute regarding title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it and the persons to whom compensation is awarded are not prepared to receive it then his hands are tied. He cannot make any payment to any one of them named in the award. He shall deposit the amount of compensation awarded in the Civil Court to which a reference under Section 18 would be submitted. Therefore, the entire scheme of Sections 11, 18, 30 and 31 of the Act read together makes it abundantly clear that the Land Acquisition Officer has not been vested with the power to go into the title of the claimants or go into the question of title of the property acquired. The limited jurisdiction vested in him is to enquire into the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation so as to apportion the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land. Therefore, such an enquiry cannot be equated to an enquiry to going to the question of title to the property in dispute and he is not empowered to declare the title of any of the persons.
No such power is conferred under the Act on the Land Acquisition Officer to terminate the acquisition proceedings on the ground that the claimants have no title to the property which is notified for acquisition. He is under a legal obligation to pass an award under Section 11 of the Act regarding the true area of the land and the compensation which in his opinion could be allowed for the land. Probably if he has information that the land notified for acquisition do not belong to the claimants who have put forth their claim before him it is open to him not to make any award within the stipulated period, so that by virtue of Section 11A the entire acquisition proceedings lapse. In which event if possession of the land notified for acquisition is taken the same has to be surrendered back, and if possession is not taken, they have no right to take possession. He need not in the award apportion the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants. It is open to him to apportion the said amount in favour of the government. Once the amount of compensation is not apportioned to the claimants, the question of the claimants accepting the said award would not arise in which event definitely they would make an application under Section 18(1) of the Act setting out their objections to the award and seek a reference to the Civil Court. Section 31 of the Act also makes it clear that if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation, the Collector shall deposit the amount of compensation in the Court to which a reference under Section 18 is submitted. Thus, he can protect the interests of the State to whom the said property belongs. It is possible that in the revenue records entries may be made in the name of private persons in respect of the government lands. It is not uncommon. It is also settled law that mere entry of persons name in the revenue records would not confer any title of the land to such person. Before initiating acquisition proceedings especially when large extent of land is notified for acquisition, the authorities would go by the entries in the mutation register and the RTC. At that stage it may not be possible for them to go into a detailed enquiry regarding title of the properly.
However, merely because in the acquisition notifications issued, the names of the claimants is shown either as kathedars or as anubhavadars that does not mean the land belongs to those persons and they are entitled to the amount of compensation to be awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In fact before passing an award the Collector is obliged to issue a notice under Section 9 of the Act calling upon the claimants to put forth their claims for compensation. The claimants are expected to state the nature of the respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of the land for such interest and other particulars. May be during these proceedings the LAO may notice that the claimants have no title to the property which is notified for acquisition. The government may not put forth any claim even at that stage though it is open to them to put forth their claim and object to the payment of compensation to the claimants who have put forth the claim on the ground that the claimants names have been wrongly shown in the revenue records and consequently notification shows their name. In fact the language employed in Sub-clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 11 makes it clear in the enquiry to be conducted by the collector he may come across not only the claims of the persons before him he may also come across all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land of whom or of whose claim he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him. He is bound to take note of such claims and apportion the compensation payable thereafter. It is in that context if it is brought to his notice by the government that the notified lands belong to the government and not to the claimants it is open to him not to apportion the payment of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants and to apportion the compensation amount in favour of the government. But, the question of apportionment would arise only after awarding the compensation amount. Land Acquisition Officer cannot decline to award compensation on the ground that the claimant has no title to the property claimed. In that view of the matter having regard to the scheme of the Act even in cases where the Land Acquisition Officer comes to the conclusion that the claimants have no title to
the property acquired he is bound to pass an award regarding the true area of the land acquired and the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land and then only go into the question of apportionment of the compensation and if he finds that the claimants have no title to the land it is open to him not to apportion the compensation amount but apportion the said compensation in favour of the government and then on an application filed under Section 18(1) of the Act to refer the disputes to the Civil Court. By adopting such procedure no injustice or hardship is caused to the government. On the other hand if he declines to award any compensation at all on the ground that the claimants have no title and the land belongs to the government and even if such order is to be construed as an award and the claimants were to seek a reference to Civil Court for adjudication and in such adjudication the Civil Court declares that the claimants are the owners of the land in question and not the government, the claimants are denied of the amount of compensation as the LAO has not awarded any compensation at all. On the contrary if the LAO decides the true area of the land and the compensation payable for such land and declines to appropriate the said amount of compensation in favour of the claimants and then a reference is made to the Civil Court, the Civil Court can after declaring the title of the claimant award the compensation awarded by the LAO as it is and if a reference had been sought even in respect of the extent of land and the amount of compensation determine the same and order for payment of the same to the claimants. This would serve the cause of justice. Therefore, even in cases where the LAO comes to the conclusion in an enquiry under Section 11 of the Act that the claimants have no title to the property which is the subject matter of acquisition, if the said land is required for the purpose for which it is notified for acquisition still he is under an obligation to pass an award regarding the true extent of land acquired and the amount of compensation payable in respect of the said land.
AIR 2008 SC 901 , GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR &; ORS VS NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND &; ORS :- A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under s.110 of the Evidence Act.
In a case reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1484 the Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:
It, therefore, implies that it is not correct for the Revenue Department to enter the name of purchaser in such cases where one of the Co-parceners sells his undivided interest. The purchaser will have to seek for partition of the family properties. Till it is done, revenue authorities should not enter name of the purchaser in respect of joint family properties in the mutation register.
However, if all the joint holders agree to sell a portion of their joint property to a purchaser then the authorities can certainly enter the name of the purchaser in respect of the extent purchased by him. In such cases the remaining property continued to be joint in the name of the joint owners.
Further, if one of the Co-parceners sells his undivided interest with the consent of all the other joint owners then his name can be removed and the name of the purchaser can be inserted. To illustrate these points following examples are given:
Let us presume there are 3 joint owners holding 6 acres of land. If all of them jointly sell one acre of land to D then it is permissible for the revenue authorities to mutate one acre of land in favour of D. Then RTC would be as follows:
A, B, C – 5 acres (jointly owned) D – 1 acre
In the second case, if C sells away his portion of land, which, for the sake of argument, say one and half acre (as agreed by all 3 owners) then RTC would look as follows: A, B – 4.20 acres (jointly owned) D – 1.20 acre
In both these cases it may noted that the consent of the other joint owners either at the time of executing sale deed or at the time of effecting mutation is necessary.
Above guidelines be kept in mind by all the concerned. This Circular is also available at the Revenue Department Internet site
Additional Secretary to Government
Revenue Department (Land Reforms)
All Deputy Commissioners.
For any suggestions / clarifications, please send mail to Mr. Rajeev Chawla (Additional Secretary)