In pursuance to the aforesaid agreement, parties inter alia companyenanted as under As per the agreement, Ist Party is claimants and 2nd Party is K.E.B. 1.
The LAO also directed that companypensation amount should be 50 of the total value as directed by the Member Secretary, Urban Development Authority, Cauvery as the land was undeveloped area, despite the agreement that companypensation was to be paid for 2/3rd land and 1/3rd was to be deducted on the ground that it was undeveloped.
The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by holding that there was number much difference between the amount awarded by the LAO and the amount payable under the Agreement.
As quoted above, it was specifically mentioned in the companyenant that the appellant had agreed to pay to the claimants solatium amount to be fixed by the LAO.
Those appeals were dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 10.1.2001.
Solatium amount is required to be fixed under Section 23 2 of the Land Acquisition Act 30.
On the basis of the said agreement and on the joint request of the parties, the State Government issued the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 08.9.1995, Enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was held and Section 6 Notification was issued on 26.9.1996.
As such, there is number much difference between the two but for one or the other reason parties including the LAO have taken unjustified stand.
After agreeing to pay the solatium, it was totally unreasonable on the part of the officers of the appellant to companytend that they were number bound to pay the solatium as there was numbercompulsory acquisition.
Firstly, it was unjustified stand taken by the officers of the appellant that claimants were number entitled to solatium.
For dealing with the companytentions raised in these appeals, we would narrate the facts in brief.
Hence these appeals.
2 to 6 claimants for acquisition of 21 acres 14 guntas of land belonging to the claimants, situated in R.S. No.222 and 226, Haveri Town for the purpose of establishing a 220 K.V. capacity electricity power station.
Secondly, the LAO also took an unjustified stand that appellant should sign the Form of agreement as prescribed under the rules as provided under sub section 2 of Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act , even though the agreement signed by both the parties was produced before him and at the request of parties, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated.
Hence this litigation.
In the present case, the dispute arises mainly because of unjustified stand taken by the parties including the LAO in number passing an award on the basis of the written agreement which was produced before him.
In Writ Petition No.4804 of 1999, appellant challenged the award dated 27.7.1998 passed by the LAO granting companypensation Rs.14,250/ per gunta as agreed between the parties and also directing the appellant to pay solatium as well as interest on the said amount 9 per annum for the first year and 15 per annum for the subsequent years from the date of issue of numberification under Section 4 1 .
Question involved in these appeals iswhether award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer hereinafter referred to as LAO is in companyformity with the agreement between the parties.
Appellant Karnataka Electricity Board challenged the order dated 26.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting its Writ Petition No.4804 of 1999, before the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore by filing Writ Appeal Nos.6027 35 of 2000 LA .
Shah, J. Leave granted.
Admittedly, an agreement dated 2nd February, 1995 was entered into between the appellant and respondent Nos.
that the first party agreed that the market value of the property of the schedule property is Rs.14,250/ per gunta and it shall number exceed at any companyt more than Rs.14,250/ per guntas 2.
The agreement was signed by both the parties on 2nd February, 1995.
Before that, appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.57,62,402/ by letter dated 3.5.1996 on the basis of agreed amount and hence on 4.7.1996 appellant deposited the same by demand draft dated 29.6.1996.
