Partly allowed

Executive Engineer v. Siddegowda

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021MFA/1935/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenged a judgment and award. The bench held that the issue was covered by a prior decision (MFA No.6390/2019). Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Reference Court to decide the market value affresh within six months with a direction to conclude proceedings rapidly.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the judgment and award dated 26.04.2017; remitted the matter to the Reference Court to decide the market value afresh and dispose of the matter within six months.

Executive Engineer Vs Siddegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^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.1935 OF 2021 (LAC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. HASSAN.

¶10

KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (PRESENT ADDRESS)

¶11

SAMPARKA SOUDHA, NO.8, BEP PREMISES, OPPOSITE ORION MALL, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 010 REP BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MR.SANGAMESH G.R.

¶12

… APPELLANTS

¶13

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

¶14

AND:

¶15

SIDDEGOWDA S/O MUDLIGOWDA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O SINGAPATTANA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY

¶17

¶18

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶21

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.04.2017 PASSED IN LAC NO.15/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HASSAN, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FILED U/S. 18(1) OF THE LA ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Sri. Manu K., learned counsel for the

¶25

appellants.

¶26

None represented for respondent No.1 though served.

¶27

Sri. Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, learned AGA for respondent No.2.

¶28

In this appeal under Section 54(1) of the

¶29

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the appellants have assailed the validity of the judgment and award dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Reference Court.

¶30

¶31

Learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, submitted that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 16.01.2021 passed in MFA No.6390/2019 (LAC).

¶32

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶33

For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2017 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

¶34

¶35

adduce evidence and thereafter to decide the market value of the land in question afresh in accordance with law.

¶36

It is made clear that this Court has not

¶37

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.

¶38

The parties before us 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.

¶39

¶40

In cases where parties are represented

¶41

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 cases, Reference Court shall issue

¶42

notice to the parties for their appearance.

¶43

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

¶44

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

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Mds.

Executive Engineer v. Siddegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Executive Engineer v. Siddegowda

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

Smt Arogya Mery Vs Sri T S Rama Lakshmaiah

Eshwara Naik Vs Raju Shetty

Vishwanatha Shetty Vs Avinash Kumar

Kavya Vs K Nagaraja

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

Executive Engineer P.W.D Vs Hanumanthegowda