Allowed

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, v. Sri. K Ramababu S/O Gangadhar Rao

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2018WA/100375/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal and dropped contempt proceedings. The Court set aside a lower court order directing a Land Acquisition Officer to release compensation to a party who was not the petitioner in the writ, holding the relief was unwarranted and the direction violative of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release compensation to non-petitioner set aside; Contempt proceedings dropped.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vs Sri. K Ramababu… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

C.C.C. NO.100118/2017 (CIVIL) C/W W.A.NO.100375/2018 (LA-RES)

¶9

IN CCC 100118/2017

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

FURKHAN S/O KHALEEL AHMED, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O BASAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶12

…COMPLAINANT

¶13

(BY SRI F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT.JAYASHRI SINTRI, THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (ANKOLA-HUBBALLI-HOSAPETE) NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.63, DHARA MAHAL, 1^ST FLOOR, U.B.HILLS, 5^TH CROSS, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶16

…ACCUSED

¶17

(BY SRI R.V.NAIK AND SRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶18

¶19

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT FOR HAVING WILFULLY DISOBEYED THE DIRECTIONS DATED 02.02.2017 ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.108922/2016 (LA-RES) VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶20

IN WA No.100375/2018

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (ANKOLA-HUBLI-HOSAPETE) NO.63, DHARA MAHAL, 1^ST FLOOR, U.B. HILLS, 5^TH CROSS, DHARWAD-583211.

¶23

... APPELLANT

¶24

(BY SRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND

¶26

SRI K.RAMABABU S/O GANGADHAR RAO AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.7-1-91 & 2, GAVISHREE SHREENAGAR COLONY, BEHIND D.C. OFFICE, KOPPAL, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶27

FURKHAN S/O KHALEEL AHAMED, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAPUR VILLAGE, TALUK & DIST: KOPPAL. ... RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) (SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 02.02.2017 DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO RELEASE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED TO RESPONDENT NO.2, PASSED IN W.P.NO.108922/2016 (LA-RES).

¶30

¶31

THIS CCC AND APPEAL COMING ON FOR FRAMING OF CHARGES THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Though the writ appeal is connected with CCC No.100118/2017, which is listed for framing of charges, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally.

¶34

This writ appeal assails the direction issued by order dated 02.02.2017 in W.P.No.108922/2016 by which, appellant herein (respondent No.1 in the writ petition) was directed to release the compensation awarded to respondent No.2 in his favour. In other words, the direction to consider representation made by the petitioner therein and to pass appropriate orders thereon is not assailed in this writ appeal.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for appellant

¶36

and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. Service of notice on respondent No.1 is dispensed with.

¶37

¶38

Appellant’s counsel submits that the writ

¶39

petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was for seeking a direction to the appellant (respondent No.1 in the writ petition) to consider his representation which was granted but in addition a direction was also issued to the appellant herein to release the compensation in favour of respondent No.2 herein (respondent No.2 in the writ petition). He submits that when a writ of mandamus simplicitor was sought by respondent No.1 herein a further direction to pay the compensation amount to respondent No.2 herein could not have been issued by the learned single Judge particularly when the writ petition was not filed by the said party nor was the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein was for the said purpose.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the direction to consider the representation of the writ petitioner has been complied with by the appellant, but being aggrieved by the subsequent direction to release the compensation amount in favour of

¶41

¶42

respondent No.2 the same has been assailed in this appeal. He drew our attention to the fact that respondent No.2 has filed CCC No.100118/2017 seeking implementation of the said direction, in which the matter is at the stage of framing of charges against accused. That when the appellant herein was not heard in the matter as no representative of the appellant appeared before the learned single Judge, the direction issued being an ex parte direction without hearing the appellant herein, could not have been issued as against the appellant herein as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court may delete the said direction by modifying the impugned order and allowing the writ appeal.

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits

¶44

that the learned single Judge in his wisdom and discretion thought that the direction to release the amount ought to be issued in favour of the 2^nd respondent as the 1^st respondent herein, who had filed the writ petition had

¶45

¶46

sought for stay of the award made in favour of the 2^nd respondent herein dated 12.04.2016 and when an application for vacating the said interim order was filed by the 2^nd respondent, at that stage the writ petition was disposed off and the said direction issued by the learned single Judge would not call for any interference.

¶47

We have perused the impugned order as well as the cause list of 02.02.2017. It is noted from the cause list that respondent No.1 was served. It is also noted that it is written as “GA –SD”. Even in the cause-title of the impugned order, it is shown that Smt.K.Vidyavathi, Additional Government Advocate has appeared for respondent No.1 in the writ petition. But, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that she had no authorization to appear in the matter and in fact, the said respondent No.1 (appellant herein) had written to Messrs. Singhania and Partners, Bangalore, (Advocates) to enter appearance on behalf of respondent No.1. But, the learned single Judge was given an

¶48

¶49

impression that learned Additional Government Advocate was representing respondent No.1. In the circumstances, respondent No.1 was directed to pay the compensation amount to respondent No.2. However, the writ petition was filed by a third party, Sri. K.Ramababu seeking only a writ of mandamus for consideration of his representation. Therefore, all that was necessary to order in the writ petition was to issue a direction to respondent No.1 to consider petitioner’s representation. However, the learned single Judge has directed respondent No.1 to pay the compensation which is stated to be about Rupees One Crore to respondent No.2. Such a direction, in our view, was wholly unwarranted as the writ petition was not filed by respondent No.2, but by a different party, and relief to respondent No.2 could not have been granted as such in the writ petition. Possibly, such a relief was granted on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and learned single Judge being under the impression that the Additional Government Advocate was representing the 1^st respondent, directed the 1^st

¶50

¶51

respondent appellant herein to pay compensation to the 2^nd respondent.

¶52

Further, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to communication issued by the learned Additional Government Advocate to the appellant subsequent to the disposal of the writ petition. Strangely, she has not referred to the direction issued to appellant herein to pay the compensation to respondent No.2, instead her communication is restricted to only consideration of the representation made by the petitioner by appellant herein.

¶53

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the direction issued by the learned single Judge to appellant herein (respondent No.1 in writ petition) to pay compensation to respondent No.2 was not in accordance with law and therefore, ought to be set aside. Writ appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶54

¶55

If the said direction is set aside, then the 2^nd

¶56

respondent in the writ petition, who has preferred the contempt petition, cannot prosecute the same further and therefore, the contempt proceedings would also have to be dropped. Accordingly, contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶57

Further learned counsel for the complainant brings to our notice Annexure-D award dated 12.04.2016 as well as order passed by the respondent/accused on 07.06.2017 as per Annexure-E. He submits that once the award has been made in favour of the complainant, there could not have been any subsequent order being passed by respondent/accused as the said authority has become functus officio .

¶58

We have perused Annexure-E order dated 07.06.2017. On perusal of the same, it is noted that the said order has been made subsequent to the order of the learned single Judge and before filing of the contempt petition.

¶59

¶60

Learned counsel for the accused submits that

¶61

the said order has been passed subsequent to the direction issued by the learned single Judge to the accused to release the compensation amount to the complainant. Learned counsel for the accused submits that order dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure-E) shall be reconsidered and an appropriate order shall be made in accordance with law. He further fairly submits that now the said direction has been set aside in the writ appeal filed by the respondent/accused appropriate orders may be made regarding order dated 07.06.2017 Annexure-E in the contempt petition.

¶62

On a close perusal of Annexure-E order as noted above, we reiterate that the said order has been passed pursuant to the direction issued by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.108922/2016 directing the accused to release the compensation amount in favour of the complainant.

¶63

¶64

In the result, the writ appeal is allowed in the

¶65

aforesaid terms.

¶66

Contempt proceedings are dropped and writ petition No.100036/2017 be delinked and listed before the learned single Judge for further consideration.

¶67

In view of dropping of the contempt proceedings, all applications stand disposed off.

¶68

Similarly in view of the disposal of the writ appeal, I.A.No.2/2018 stands disposed off.

SD/-

JUDGE

SD/JUDGE

EM/CLK

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, v. Sri. K Ramababu S/O Gangadhar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, v. Sri. K Ramababu S/O Gangadhar Rao

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

Sri. Siddalingeshwara Vidya Peetha (R) Vs Smt. Shalini Rajanesh

Venkappa Vs Smt.Ningawwa

Shri. Basappa Kuri S/O. Siddappa Vs Mr. Gollar Sheenaiaha (Incharge)

Sri Rameshagouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Fakiravva W/O Malleshapa Talawar Vs Sri. B. Bheemappa

Smt.Yasmeen D/O Aslam Shaikh Vs the Commissioner of Police