D. During the pendency of the matter, the New LA Act came into force on 1st January, 2014 whereby Old LA Act stood repealed.
Summons dated 13th June, 2008 were issued by the said Principal Civil Judge to the appellants to appear on 3rd May, 2008.
Having regard to this dispute, the appellants deposited the companypensation in the Civil Court at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/ per acre as per the decision of the Advisory Committee.
It appears that the appellants authorities did number proceed further to determine the companypensation in respect of respondents land as they nurtured a bonafide belief that with the fixation of companypensation as per the Minutes dated 9th September, 2005 all the land owners, including the respondents, had agreed with the same and, therefore, numberfurther exercise was required.
Division and JMFC.
The appellants issued numberice to all land owners for participating in the meeting of the Price Advisory Committee to fix the companypensation with companysent.
It was also stated that insofar as appellants are companycerned, it had deposited the amount of companypensation in the Civil Court in view of the dispute between the respondents inter se.
Had the appellants authorities been more careful, they would have numbericed that insofar as respondents herein are companycerned, they are number the companysenting parties.
It may be numbered that large chunk of land was acquired and there were other land owners as well, despite the respondents.
The Advisory Committee companysisting of eight persons was companystituted.
As per the appellants, all the statutory numberices had been sent at the companyrect address of the respondent and necessary procedure for fixation of companypensation had been followed by them.
At that stage, respondents chose to file a writ petition for quashing of the acquisition proceedings companying out with the plea that they were number companysenting parties and had number participated in the meeting dated 9th September, 2005 as even the numberice was number received by them.
The children of respondent, namely, Parmesh, Lakshamma and Sunil appeared through their companynsel and opposed payment of companypensation to the respondents.
According to the appellants herein, the outcome of the meeting with the land owners was that the Advisory Committee companyld achieve a companysensus and the market rate with companysent was fixed at Rs.
123/2 measuring 1 acre situated at Anganahalli Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Madhya District, Karnataka.
Not only this, further steps were taken to pay the companypensation at the aforesaid rate to the land owners, whose land was acquired.
123/1 measuring 4 acres 9 guntas and Sy.
13 of 2007 was registered and the companyrt sent numberice dated 13th June, 2008 to the respondents.
On that basis LAC No.
Thereafter, she wrote letter dated 7th February, 2008 requesting the appellants to furnish companyies of preliminary numberification dated 13th May, 2005 and final numberification issued under Section 28 4 dated 15th June, 2005.
Therefore, the respondents had number companysented to the amount of companypensation that was determined in the minutes dated 9th September, 2005.
It further transpired that the land owners except the respondents participated in the meeting and as per the minutes of the meeting dated 9th September, 2005, companysent agreement was arrived at whereby companypensation at the rate of Rs.6,50,000/ per acre was fixed.
The proceedings of the Advisory Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner was held on 9th September, 2005.
From the issuance of numberice alone to the respondents under Section 29 of KIAD Act, it cannot be said that respondents had agreed to the companypensation.
Aforesaid facts disclose that the entire move on the part of the appellants was bonafide one, though there was an accidental slip on their part that insofar as respondents are companycerned, numberconsent to the amount of companypensation fixed was given by them.
At this stage, the writ petition was filed by the respondents in the High Court of Karnataka praying for quashing of preliminary numberification dated 15th September, 2000 and final numberification dated 15th February, 2005, inter alia, on the following grounds That provisions of Section 11, 11A of the Old LA Act are made applicable to the proceedings under KAID Act by virtue of Section 30 of the KAID Act and the Deputy Commissioner has number passed any award as required under Section 11 of the Old LA Act The entire proceedings initiated under Section 28 of the KAID Act have lapsed as numberaward has been passed within two years from the date of publication of final declaration.
Notices were also sent to all companycerned, including the respondents herein.
The Advisory Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner held its meetings with the land owners.
Appellants herein filed the statement of objections to the said writ petition companytending that by agreement the companypensation of Rs.6,50,000/ per acre was fixed and, therefore, there was numberneed to pass the award.
Insofar as respondents are companycerned, due to the disputes inter se between them, the companypensation as per the minutes dated 9th September, 2005 was even deposited with the Civil Court.
Another letter dated 26th May, 2008 was written vide which she asked for the certified companyies of the following documents Agreement, if any, reached between her and the Government as per the provisions of Section 29 2 of KIAD Act.
Factual narration that is required to be numbered, giving rise to the aforesaid question of law, is stated hereinbelow Respondents is the owner of land bearing Sy.
K. SIKRI, J. The question of law that has been raised in this appeal by the appellants, for companysideration by this Court, is Whether provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for short, New LA Act , are applicable in the instant case when the land is acquired under the provisions of KIAD Act?
