Allowed

Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited v. Smt.Subhadra W/O Late Mr.Irappa Badiger

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2021WP/110230/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a reference award enhancing compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Setting aside the award for lack of notice to the beneficiary petitioner, the Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration including the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award in LAC No.3686/2014 set aside; matter remitted for fresh consideration after impleading petitioner; petitioner directed to file statement of objections.

Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited Vs… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.110230/2019 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED 3^RD FLOOR, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, OPP.ORION MALL, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. REPPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND SLAO MRS.T.R.SHOBHA.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT.SUMANGALA A.CHAKALABBI AND SRI MANU K., ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT.SUBHADRA W/O LATE MR.IRAPPA BADIGER AGE: ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: H.W,

¶12

MANOHAR TEERTAPPA BADIGER, S/O LATE IRAPPA TEERTAPPA BADIGER. AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL.

¶13

CHANDRASHEKHAR RAGHUPATI BADIGER S/O LATE IRAPPA TEERTAPPA BADIGER. AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶14

VISHWANATH RAGHUPATI BADIGER S/O LATE IRAPPA TEERTAPPA BADIGER, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: PVT.SERVICE.

¶15

¶16

ALL ARE R/AT: BAGALKOT VILLAGE.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103.

¶18

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., BAGALKOT.

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAY S.HALLIKERI, ADV.FOR R1 TO 4; SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R5 TO 7)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2018 AND AWARD DATED 10.04.2018 RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGALKOT AT:BAGALKOT IN LAC NO.3686/20014 i.e. ANNEXURE-A AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION WITH DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO ARRAY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS AN OPPONENT IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 04.04.2018 passed in LAC No.3686/2014 by the II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Bagalkot allowing the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants thereby re-determining and enhancing the compensation awarded in their favour.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7. Perused the material on record.

¶28

In addition to reiterating the various contentions put forth in the memorandum of writ petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for petitioner/KRDCL submits that since the petitioner/KRDCL is the beneficiary of the subject acquisition, the impugned

¶29

¶30

judgment and award passed by the reference Court (trial Court) without impleading/arraying the petitioner as a party to the reference proceedings and without notifying and hearing the petitioner is not only contrary to the material on record and the facts and probabilities obtaining in the instant case but also the decision of this court in the case of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board V/s Sri Byregowda and another, W.P.No.55485 of 2017 c/w W.P.No.11178 of 2016 dated 20.11.2018. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 04.04.2018 passed by the trial Court (Reference Court) deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the reference Court for reconsideration afresh after providing an opportunity to the petitioner and hearing the petitioner.

¶31

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants submits that there is no merit in

¶32

¶33

the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the material on record indicates that the petitioner/KRDCL is the beneficiary of the subject acquisition and in the light of the decision of this Court in Sri Byregowda’s case supra wherein the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Neyvely Lignite Corporation Limited V/s Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neyvely and others, AIR 1995 SC 1004 is followed, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and award re-determining/enhancing the compensation payable in favour of the respondent Nso.1 to 4/claimants without arraying/impleading the petitioner as a party to the reference proceedings and without hearing the petitioner deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back for

¶35

reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶36

¶37

In the result, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. Petition is allowed. ii. Impugned judgment and award dated 04.04.2018 passed in LAC No.3686/2014 is hereby set aside.

¶40

iii. Matter is remitted back to the trial Court (Reference Court) for reconsideration afresh after impleading the petitioner as additional respondent No.4 to the reference proceedings in LAC No.3686/2014.

¶41

iv. Parties undertake to appear before the trial Court (Reference Court) on 25.10.2021.

¶42

v. Petitioner/KRDCL is directed to file statement of objections to the claim petition on 25.10.2021.

¶43

vi. Having regard to the fact that the reference proceedings are of the year 2014, the trial Court (Reference Court) is directed to conclude the

¶44

¶45

proceedings after considering the objections of the petitioner and hearing the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of six months from 25.10.2021.

¶46

vii. The amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 15.05.2019 passed by this Court is directed to be transmitted/transferred to the Reference Court and to be kept in a fixed deposit till disposal of the reference proceedings.

¶47

SD JUDGE

¶48

CLK

Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited v. Smt.Subhadra W/O Late Mr.Irappa Badiger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited v. Smt.Subhadra W/O Late Mr.Irappa Badiger

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

Shekappa Kariyappa Benakannavar, Vs Smt. Mamatazabegam

Hanumanthappa S/O Bhimanna Vs S. Rajashekar S/O Shanmukhappa

Smt. Neelam W/O Oshripad Betgeri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Basavaraj S/O Mahantappa Angadi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Kashinath S/O Padadanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Tirakreddy S/O Venkreddy Alavandi Vs the Deputy Commissioner