Disposed

C. Munithimmareddy v. M/S Terracon Projects

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2020WA/487/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a special leave petition against an order modifying a single judge's writ decree. Counsel for caveator respondents argued the order was altered post-decree. The court observed that notices were issued to determine compensation entitlement, making further appellate consideration unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Special leave petition disposed of; removal of office objection waived; pending applications disposed of.

C. Munithimmareddy Vs M/S Terracon… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶7

W.A.No.487/2020 (LA – KIADB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

C.Munithimmareddy, Son of Late Chinnappaiah Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Iggalur Village, Chandapura Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District – 562 106. … Appellant (By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Bhat.A, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/S Terracon Projects, Near Attibele School, Jigala Road, Attibele, Bengaluru – 562 107. Represented by its Proprietor Sri. S.V.Babu, Son of Late Ramabadra Shetty, Aged about 60 years, Residing at No.927, 18^th ‘A’ Main, 5^th Block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560 010.

¶12

¶13

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Vidhana Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001. 3. The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, No.49, 4^th and 5^th Floor, East Wing, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru-560 001 Chief Executive Officer and Executive Member.

¶14

The Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, No.49, 4^th and 5^th Floor, East Wing, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. 5. M/s Gil (India) Limited, Corporation Office at Gail Bhawan, 16 Bhikaji Cama Place, R.k.Puram, New Delhi- 110 066. South Office at Gail (India) Limited, “Swan” 2^nd Floor, #323, Kodigehalli Main Road, Sahakar Naagar, Bengaluru – 560 092. Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director. … Respondents

¶15

¶16

(By Sri.Vijay Kumar.K, Advocate for R-1, Sri. T.L.Kiran Kumar AGA for R-2, Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar, Advocate for C/R-3 and R-4, Vide order dated 07.10.2020 notice to R-5 is dispensed with)

¶17

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to quash the order dated 14/07/2020 in WP No.6012/2020(LA-KIADB), passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court by allowing the appeal.

¶18

This appeal coming on for orders this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Though this appeal is listed for removal of office objections, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent Nos.3 & 4 submitted that the appeal would not survive for further consideration in view of the fact that the impugned order dated 14.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6012/2020 has been modified by the very same learned Single Judge subsequently on 05.08.2020.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

¶23

the modified order was passed on I.A.No.2/2020 dated 05.08.2020, by which, direction No.2 in paragraph 8 of the original order dated 14.07.2020 passed in the writ petition has been modified. He therefore submitted that pursuant to the modification of the impugned order, notices have been issued to the concerned parties and thereafter, decision would be taken by the fourth respondent as to who is the party and who is entitled to the compensation amount. He therefore, submitted that the appeal may be accordingly disposed of.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel

¶25

for the respondent as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate also endorsed the fact that the learned Single Judge, on 05.08.2020, has modified the earlier order passed in W.P.No.6012/2020 dated 14.07.2020.

¶26

¶27

For the sake of immediate reference, we may extract the relevant paragraphs in the order dated 14.07.2020 which reads as under:

¶28

“8. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for KIADB, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶29

i) Respondent No.1 shall notify the name of the petitioner in the final notification dated 03.02.2020 by issuing corrigendum within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

¶30

ii) Respondents No.2 and 3 are directed to pay suitable compensation to the petitioner for which the Petitioner is entitled to within six (6) weeks from the date of notifying petitioner’s name in the final notification.

¶31

The said paragraph has been subsequently modified by the order dated 05.08.2020 on an

¶32

¶33

application filed namely I.A.No.2/2020 with the following modification:

¶34

“Direction No.2 in the order dated 14.07.2020 is

¶35

modified as follows:

¶36

i. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from today, and if there is no valid objection, compensation amount shall be disbursed in favour of the petitioner at the earliest.

¶37

ii. I.A.No.2/2020 accordingly, stands disposed of.

¶38

Registry to carry out following corrections in the autograph as under:

¶39

a) at para -2, instead of ‘respondents No.2 and 3’, the same shall be corrected as ‘respondent No.1’

¶40

b) at para-5, instead of ‘the 4^th respondent No.2 and 3’, the same shall be corrected as ‘respondent Nos.2 and 3’,

¶41

c) and lastly, in the operative portion, the word ‘and’ shall be inserted after the word ‘same’.”

¶42

¶43

In view of the said modification what emerges is the fact that respondent No.3 has to consider the claim of the writ petitioner in accordance with law and thereafter disburse the compensation amount to the person who is entitled to the same. Since notices have been issued by respondent Nos.3 & 4 to determine as to which party is entitled to the compensation amount, we did not think that the appeal would require any further consideration. The reason being the appellant herein was not a party in the writ petition and also being notified he is participating in the enquiry which is being conducted by respondent Nos.3 & 4, so as to determine as to which party is entitled to the compensation amount.

¶44

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of noting the aforesaid facts and subsequent events.

¶45

¶46

Consequently, pending applications stand

¶47

disposed of.

¶48

In view of the above order, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

¶49

In view of the above order, removal of the office objection is waived.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KTY

C. Munithimmareddy v. M/S Terracon Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Munithimmareddy v. M/S Terracon Projects

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

Smt Poornima G. B. Vs Sri Hannaraju K C

Karnataka Medical Council Vs Dr Lakshminarayana

Vijaya Bank (Now Bank of Baroda) Vs St. Kuriakose Elias Chavara Church Parish Trust

M/S Hindusthan Petroleum Vs Asha

Smt B S Nalini Vs Sri Arun Belle

Ramalakshmaiah C Vs Smt. Anjenamma