Allowed

Executive Engineer P.W.D v. Hanumanthegowda

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2021MFA/1925/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the reference court's judgment and award in land acquisition proceedings. The matter was remitted to the reference court for a fresh determination of market value after parties were given an opportunity to adduce evidence, with a directive to conclude proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award quashed; matter remitted to Reference Court for fresh decision on market value with parties given opportunity to adduce evidence.

Executive Engineer P.W.D Vs Hanumanthegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1925 OF 2021 (LAC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HASSAN

¶10

KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (PRESENT ADDRESS) SAMPARKA SOUDHA, NO.8 BEP PREMISES, OPPOSITE ORION MALL DR RAJKUMAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 010 REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MR S C DHARMEGOWDA

¶11

… APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. MANU K., ADV.,)

¶13

AND:

¶14

HANUMANTHEGOWDA S/O CHIKKEGOWDA DEAD BY LRS NANJUNDEGOWDA S/O LATE ANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PIRUMENAHALLY VILLAGE, HASSAN, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK

¶15

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HASSAN

¶17

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 13.08.2021)

¶20

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2018, PASSED IN LAC NO.76/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/SEC.18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT

¶21

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Mr.Manu K, learned counsel for the appellants.

¶24

None for respondent No.1 though served.

¶25

In this appeal under Section 54(1) of the

¶26

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the appellants have assailed the validity of the judgment and award dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Reference Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants, at the

¶28

outset, submitted that the controversy involved in this

¶29

¶30

appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 16.01.2021 passed in MFA No.6390/2019 (LAC).

¶31

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. We find that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in MFA No.6390/2019 (LAC) decided on 16.01.2021.

¶32

For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned judgment and award dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Reference Court is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Reference Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. Needless to state that the Reference Court shall also afford an opportunity to the claimants as well as to the appellants herein to adduce evidence and thereafter to decide the market value of the land in question afresh in accordance with law.

¶33

¶34

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case as the market value of the lands has to be determined by the Reference Court on the basis of the material adduced before it. Since, the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2008, we deem it appropriate to direct the Reference Court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellants undertake to cooperate with the Reference Court for early conclusion of the proceedings and not to seek any unnecessary adjournments. The parties shall appear before the Reference Court along with the copy of this order on 01.09.2021.

¶36

In cases where parties are represented through counsel before this Court, counsel for both the parties undertake that the parties shall remain present before the Reference Court on 01.09.2021. In remaining

¶37

¶38

cases, Reference Court shall issue notice to the parties for their appearance.

¶39

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

¶40

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Mds.

Executive Engineer P.W.D v. Hanumanthegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer P.W.D v. Hanumanthegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer Vs Siddegowda

Kavya Vs K Nagaraja

M/S Bel Employees House Building Co-Operative Vs the Income Tax Officer

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Thippamma

Smt. Sunitha Vs Sri Dr Pradeep Kumar Hiremat

Smt. Sunitha Vs Sri. B. S. Naveena