Partly allowed

Smt. G. Geetha v. Union of India

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021WA/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench distinguished the Single Judge's order as an ex-parte remedy rather than a final decision on merits. The court directed the Reference Court to re-determine compensation within six months after impleadment, mandating a 60/- per sq.ft. deposit with statutory benefits to preserve value, while ignoring the 159-day filing delay.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; recovery of deposit mandated; Reference Court to dispose within six months of impleadment; delay ignored.

Smt. G. Geetha Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

WRIT APPEAL No.74/2020 (LA – RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. G. GEETHA W/O SRI K. HARI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.419, I FLOOR, 6TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 086

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SHRI.SEETHARAMA RAO B.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY CONTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BENGALURU 560 046

¶14

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER 3^RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK, V.V. TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SHRI.C.BABU ADV.,FOR R1; SHRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2019, MADE IN WP NO.42422/2017 (LA-RES) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

There is a delay of 159 days in filing the appeal.

¶22

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Addl.

¶23

Government Pleader for respondent No.2 on the merits of the case and perused the material on record.

¶24

Briefly stated the facts are that the land belonging to

¶25

the appellant was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for brevity) for the purpose of Bengaluru - Hassan Railway Project. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 08.04.2009 determining the market value of the land notified belonging to the appellant herein at Rs.93,320/- per acre. Not

¶26

¶27

being satisfied with the compensation awarded, respondent

¶28

herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act in LAC No.138/2011. The same was considered by the Reference Court, being the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, at Ramanagara. In the said proceeding, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who has passed the award was placed ex-parte . The Reference Court passed the award on 21.08.2012 enhancing the compensation from Rs.93,320/- per acre as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.150/- per sq.ft. in respect of the lands belonging to the appellant herein. The said amount has not yet been paid to the appellant herein. But, in the year 2017, the South Western Railway, Bengaluru, filed W.P.No.42422/2017 assailing the exparte judgment and award of the Reference Court passed in LAC No.138/2011, inter alia, contending that the South Western Railway being the beneficiary, was not impleaded as a party before the Reference Court and the judgment and award of the Reference Court was also ex-parte one.

¶29

¶30

Learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned

¶31

judgment and award of the Reference Court placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD V. GYAN DEVI, (AIR

¶32

1995, SC 724) and has restored the LAC No.138/2011 on the file of the Reference Court for re-determination of the said compensation after affording an opportunity to the South Western Railway, being the beneficiary in the said acquisition. Being aggrieved, the claimant-land loser has preferred this appeal.

¶33

Since the impugned award and judgment of the Reference Court has been set aside in order to give an opportunity to the beneficiary to have a say in the matter before the Reference Court and the impugned award and judgment of the Reference Court being ex-parte one, we think that the order of the learned Single Judge would not call for any interference. But, equities between the parties ought to be balanced, since

¶34

¶35

acquisition notifications were issued over a decade ago and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 08.04.2009.

¶36

In the circumstances, while confirming the remand of the matter to the Reference Court, we direct the parties to appear before the said Court on 01.03.2021 without expecting any separate notice. On the said date, the appellant herein or respondent No.1 herein to file their application for impleadment of respondent No.1 herein i.e., South Western Railway.

¶37

On such impleadment being made, respondent No.1

¶38

shall deposit the market value at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq.ft. along with proportionate statutory benefits before the Reference Court within a period of three weeks from the date of impleadment of the South Western Railway in LAC No.138/2011. On such deposit being made, the same shall be deposited in any interest bearing deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of six months in the first instance.

¶39

Since the reference is of the year 2011, the Reference Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and

¶40

¶41

within a period of six months from the date of impleadment of the South Western Railway – respondent No.1 herein in the said proceeding.

¶42

It is needless to observe that all the parties shall cooperate with the Reference Court for expeditious disposal of the reference Proceeding.

¶43

Since the appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, the period of delay of 159 days in filing this appeal is ignored. I.A.No.1/2020 is accordingly disposed.

¶44

Parties to bear their own costs.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Psg *****

Smt. G. Geetha v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. G. Geetha v. Union of India

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

Sri. Rangaraju Vs Sri. Ramakrishnaiah.M.D.

Kuvendra T M Somanna Vs State of Karnataka

M S Santhosh Vs N Govind

Sharth Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Abbas @ Abbas Ali Vs State of Karnataka by

M S Shivashankar Vs Sri. Gaurav Gupta IAS