Partly allowed

Parvathi Khemu Padti, v. the Slao

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2019MFA/23724/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal partly regarding rejection of claims for 18 land parcels. The court directed the Reference Court to adjudicate the pending reference and hold the reference within three months, no interest for the delay period, and ordered refund of court fees.

What did the court decide?

Order rejected insofar as it pertains to Sl.Nos.2 to 18 set aside; Reference Court to dispose within three months; no interest for delay; refund of court fee.

Parvathi Khemu Padti, Vs the Slao — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPAL NO.23724/2011 (LAC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.PARVATHI KHEMU PADTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS,

¶11

¶12

1(A) KUMARI PREMA D/O KHEMU PADTI, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/AT AMADALLI, KARWAR

¶13

1(B) KUMAR MURALIDHAR S/O KHEMU PADTI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/AT: AMADALLI - 581 301,

¶14

1(C) SMT.MANGALA W/O. GURUNATH GAONKAR, AGE: 37 YRS, OCC: NILL, R/AT: AMADALLI - 581 301,

¶15

... APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI.LINGARAJ MARADI AND SRI.SURESH S. BHAT, ADVS.)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE S.L.A.O. PROJECT SEA BIRD NAVAL BASE, KARWAR

¶19

THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA AND GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 042.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, CGSC FOR R2)

¶22

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.08.2010 PASSED IN LAC NO.17/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KARWAR, ALLOWING REFERENCE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶24

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J ., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

The appellants are before this Court being aggrieved by the orders of the Reference Court passed in LAC No.17/2009 dated 23.08.2010.

¶28

The case of the appellants is that, in all 18 parcels of land had been subjected to acquisition for the Sea Bird Naval Base Project and that in respect of all the 18 lands, awards have been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the appellants are also in receipt of the same. That being dissatisfied with the quantum of the award, an application under Section 18(1) of the

¶29

¶30

Land Acquisition Act, came to be made by the LRs of the original khatedar. The said application not being considered, the LRs of the original khatedar preferred a petition under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. The said petition came to be registered as a Misc.LAC No.38/2001 and came to be disposed of by the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karwar by order dated 29.10.2005 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Project Sea Bird Naval Base - 1^st respondent herein, was directed to refer the applications submitted by the appellants under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶31

Thereafter and pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2005, the reference case came to be registered as LAC No.17/2009 and the Reference Court being the Court of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Karwar, while disposing of the Reference Case has been pleased to reject the claim of the appellants insofar as they relate to the parcels of the lands detailed at Sl.No.2 to 18 and has been pleased to enhance the market value in

¶32

¶33

respect of survey No.429/4. With regard to the other lands, it is concluded that no material demonstrating the title of the appellants is placed before the Court and it has further observed that there is no reference in respect of these lands in the operative portion of the order dated 29.10.2005 and that the Misc. petition is confined only in respect of the three parcels of lands and there is no reference to the other lands. Hence the reference Court deemed it appropriate to reject the claim insofar as it relates to other parcels of land.

¶34

Learned Government Advocate, on

¶35

instructions, has fairly conceded that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Reference Court as decree needs to be drawn by the Reference Court in respect of other lands also. But he would contend that there is delay in seeking the relief. That the instant appeal was dismissed for default by order dated 23.02.2012 and came to be restored after the delay of more than 2307 days by order dated 06.09.2018. There is also further delay of 218 days in

¶36

¶37

preferring the appeal and the appellants are not entitled for any interest for the delayed period, which has been occasioned on account of lack of diligence on the part of the appellants.

¶38

The submission merits consideration.

¶39

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in [2011]1 SCC 790 in the case of Secretary/General Manager, Chennai, Central Cooperative Bank Limited and Another Vs. K. Kamalaveni Sundaram has held that the litigant cannot derive advantage of inaction or lack of diligence in re-presenting the plaint. In para 11 of the said decision it is held as under:

¶40

“11. As noticed above, the plaint was returned by the City Civil Court, Chennai to the landlady on 20.01.2000 for re-presenting the same after rectification of the defects. However, for the reasons best known to the landlady, the plaint was not re-presented immediately nor within reasonable time. As a matter of fact, the matter remained dormant in the hands of the landlady and the plaint was re-presented after five years

¶41

¶42

and six months on 20.07.2005. Obviously, the landlady cannot derive advantage of her inaction or lack of diligence in re-presenting the plaint. Had the landlady re-presented the plaint within reasonable time, the matter would have been decided long back. As the facts reveal, the plaint was re-presented on 20.07.2005 and the suit was decreed by the trial court on 24.03.2008. In the circumstances, therefore, the award of interest for the period 20.01.2000 to 20.07.2005 does not seem to be justified.”

¶43

Hence the appeal is partly allowed and the order under challenge is set aside insofar as it pertains to rejecting the claim of the appellants in respect of the lands detailed at Sl.Nos.2 to 18. It is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled for any interest for the period of 2525 days. The Reference Court is directed to adjudicate and dispose of the reference within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellants shall appear before the Reference Court on 27.05.2019. In view of the above order, the appellants shall be entitled for refund of the Court fee in terms of Section 64 of the Act.

¶44

¶45

In view of the above order, there shall be no order

as to costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

gab