Dismissed

Sri. Jayaram v. Sri. Venkatesh

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2013MFA/2801/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of an appeal filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant had withdrawn his review petition against a final decree in a prior partition suit. The Court held that the finding dismissing the appellant's claim did not survive, necessitating the release of the compensation to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of without survival of the appellant's claim against the disposal of the compensation.

Sri. Jayaram Vs Sri. Venkatesh — Partition | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF September 2013

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH

¶5

M.F.A.No.2801 / 2013 (CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Jayaram S/o late Dyavappa aged 70 years, R/at No.3424, Doddakammanahalli Gottigere Post, Begur Hobli, Bangalore.

¶8

.. Appellant

¶9

( By Sri H.S.Ramamurthy, Advocate )

¶10

AND :

¶11

Venkatesh, aged 48 years, S/o Ramaiah,

¶12

Manjunath, aged 45 years, S/o Ramaiah,

¶13

Vijayendra, Aged 48 years, S/o Late Thimmaiah @ Yellappa,

¶14

T.Ravi, aged 35 years, S/o Thimmaiah @ Yellappa,

¶15

All are R/at No.3424, Doddakammanahalli Gottigere Post, Begur Hobli, Bangalore.

¶16

¶17

Jayanthi N. Rao, Major, R/at No.349, 11^th Cross, 14^th Main Road, 2^nd Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore.

¶18

G.K.Prabhakar, Major, R/at Gottigere, Uttarahali Hobli, Bangalore.

¶19

Smt.Chinnamma, Major, W/o V.Muniswamy, R/at Hulimavu, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

¶20

G.K.Rajanna @ G.K.Avalappa, Major, S/o T.Krishnappa, R/at Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore.

¶21

Kuppaswamy, Major, S/o Veera Swamy, SOS Post, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore.

¶22

Nagaraju, Major, R/at No.349, 11^th Cross, 14^th Main Road, 2^nd Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore.

¶23

Mehaboob Sab, Major, S/o Moadheen Sab, Residing near Vijayalakshmi Farm, Doddakammanahalli, Gottigere Post, Begur Hobli, bangalore.

¶24

¶25

Special Land Acquisition Officer-I, Karnataka Indl.Development Board, (Bangalore Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project) No.3/2, Kheny Building, Gandhinagar, Bangalore.

¶26

.. Respondents

¶27

( By Sri B.M.Ananthanarayana, Advocate for C/R-2 & 3)

¶28

This Appeal is filed under Section54 (1) of Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2013 passed in LAC.No.305/2005 on the file of the XLIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge.

¶29

This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following :

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

This appeal is filed against the order dated 21^st January 2013 passed by the Reference Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to disbursement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of Survey No.20/14, measuring 1 acre 22 guntas, situated at Kammanahalli village, Begooru Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Being aggrieved the same, the appellant-claimant No.1 is before this Court.

¶32

¶33

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties.

¶34

It appears, the appellant herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.172/1993 for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's one third share in respect of all the suit schedule properties. He described those properties as undivided family properties. The suit came to be decreed against the appellant. Against which, he preferred R.A.No.14/2002. Subsequently, he filed a memo and based on the memo, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in that suit became final and it is binding on all the parties. Subsequently, the appellant has raised a contention that he has the absolute rights over the entire property in Survey No.20/14 in the present LAC.No.305/2005. The Government has disputed the claim of the appellant herein as well as in respect of other claimants and contended that the claimants are not entitled for share/apportionment based on the oral partition. The appellant having lost the battle before the trial Court as well as Appellate Court, is before this Court stating that there is no issue framed

¶35

¶36

by the trial Court with regard to share/apportionment of the compensation amount.

¶37

In view of the appeal filed by the appellant being withdrawn, the appeal as against the finding of the trial Court dismissing the claim of the appellant does not survive for consideration. In that view of the matter, the amount in deposit invariably has to be released in favour of respondent for which the appellant cannot have any objection nor can claim any damages as he himself has withdrawn the appeal filed against the finding of the trial Court.

¶38

With the above observation, appeal is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

bk/

Sri. Jayaram v. Sri. Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Jayaram v. Sri. Venkatesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri M.R. Govind

Mr. Harish Kumar Vs Sri T.N. Kosalram

Smt. Narasamma Vs B Balaguraiah

A Mahadevappa S/O Nagappa Since Dead by Lrs Vs the Assistant Commissioner and the Land

Smt Bhavya Vs Sri. K Babu

Sri Eshwar Reddy Vs Sri Dinakaran Reddy