Partly allowed

Sri. Thimmappaiah v. the Special Land

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021MSA/105/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that a Reference Court should determine compensation payable even without the claimant's appearance. It remitted the matter back to the Reference Court to determine appropriate compensation disregarding accumulated interest, dismissing further irregular delay.

What did the court decide?

Remission of the matter to the Reference Court for determination of appropriate compensation as on the date of possession, without interest for the period of procedural delay.

Sri. Thimmappaiah Vs the Special Land — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

M.S.A. NO.105 OF 2016 (LA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. THIMMAPPAIAH S/O. LATE KENCHEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR SMT. SAKKAMMA W/O. LATE MAHADEVAIAH, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT RAMAKRISHNAPURA VILL. HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TQ. & DIST. - 572101.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND

¶13

ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, TUMAKURU,

¶14

TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER

¶16

HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, KUNIGAL ROAD, SADHASHIVANAGARA, TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. SAVITHA T.H., HCGP)

¶19

¶20

THIS MSA FILED UNDER SEC. 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.09.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.78/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SEC. 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUSITION ACT R/W SEC.96 OF CPC., AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.5.2002 PASSED IN LAC 17/98 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, REJECTING THE REFERENCE.

¶21

THIS MSA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The appellant is before this Court seeking for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 passed in R.A.No.78/2016 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru confirming the order of dismissal dated 29.05.2002 passed in L.A.C.No.17/1998 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Tumakuru.

¶24

The appellant is stated to be a daughter-in-law of the person shown as a owner of the land in the land acquisition proceedings who had sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which came to be numbered as L.A.C.No.17/1998 and dismissed on account of non-appearance of the claimant, noticing

¶25

¶26

that when the matter was referred, no one had appeared on behalf of the claimant.

¶27

The order dated 29.05.2002 was challenged in R.A.No.78/2016 after a lapse of 14 years. The said R.A.No.78/2016 came to be dismissed on account of the inordinate delay of 14 years.

¶28

Sri. M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the appellant would submit by relying on the decision of this Court in the case of M.S.Ramaiah and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 1974 KAR 122 that the Reference Court ought not to have dismissed the claim petition but ought to have determined the compensation. Even though there is no appearance on behalf of the claimant, he reiterated that the decision in the case of M.S.Ramaiah (supra) still holds the filed and has not been over ruled or distinguished.

¶29

Smt. Savitha.T.H., learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that there has been no prosecution of the matter by the appellant from the time when reference was

¶30

¶31

made and therefore, this present appeal would also have to be dismissed.

¶32

In light of the decision of this Court in the case of M.S.Ramaiah (supra) , the Reference Court ought to have determined the compensation payable which is admittedly not been done. The only ground of dismissal of Regular Appeal is due to delay and the very foundation of the order impugned being improper, I am of the considered opinion that the matter would have to be remitted back to the Reference Court for determination of the compensation as on the date on which the property was taken possession of. However, the claimant would not be entitled for interest from the date of reference till the date of filing of R.A.No.78/2016 i.e., on 23.03.2016. The Reference Court to determine the appropriate compensation.

¶33

The appeal is partly allowed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

GJM

Sri. Thimmappaiah v. the Special Land

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Thimmappaiah v. the Special Land

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

Sanjeeva Poojary Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M R Umashankar Vs Smt Gangamma

Mohammed Amjad Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Sushma Vs Sri. P Praveen Kumar

Govinda Shetty, Vs M R Durgappa

Sri Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka