TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bijapur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in LAC Misc. No. 27/2005. By the impugned order, the Reference Court has dismissed the petitioners' application dated 04.06.2005 filed under section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended in Karnataka (for short 'the Act'). The said application was filed to direct the respondent-L.A.O to refer the matter to the Reference Court as sought by them in their application dated 17.02.2003 filed before the LA.O under section 28A(3) of the Act. 2. The facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as follows: The petitioners filed an application dated 20.05.2002(Ex.P1) under section 28A(1) of the Act for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the compensation payable to the petitioners? To examine the said question, it is relevant to refer to section 28A of the Act, which reads as follows: 28A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court.- (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintainable in law. This is evident by a plain reading of section 28A(3) of the Act To apply under section 28A(3) of the Act, there must be an award under section 28A(2) of the Act, determining the amount of compensation payable. As no award was made under section 28A(2) of the Act, the application dated 17.02.2003(Ex.P4) filed under section 28A(3) of the Act before the respondent-L.A.O. was not maintainable in law. When the application itself was not maintainable in law, question of directing the L.A.O to refer the matter to the Reference Court pursuant to such an application does not arise. Hence, the impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law. 4. The petitioners' application (Ex.P1) filed under section 28A(1) of the Act befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
