The Bench dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it is not maintainable, holding that an appeal lies under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the petitioner already has liberty to challenge the award in the pending appeal before this Court.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.112321/2015 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN :
...Petitioners
(By Sri.RAMESH N MISALE, ADV.)
AND
2
….Respondents
(By Sri.SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3; Sri.B M ANGADI AND Smt.RATNAMALA G H, ADVS. FOR R4-R6; R7 & R8 ARE MINOR REPTD. BY R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT SAUNDATTI IN LAC NO.250/2011 DATED 20.03.2013 UNDER ANNEXURE-E AND E1, SO FAR AS IT IS CONCERNING TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 THEREIN i.e., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, THE PETITIONER NO.1 HEREIN AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B GROUP’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners-KNNL is challenging the judgment and award dated 20.03.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, in LAC No.250/2011.
4
Annexue-E. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the LAC Court, the State filed an appeal before this Court in MFA No.100552/2014 wherein the petitioner was arrayed as the 6th respondent. The petitioner had raised the very same contention before the Division Bench in the said MFA. The Division Bench disposed of the appeal by reserving liberty to the 6th respondent, who is the petitioner herein, to file a appeal challenging the judgment and award by explaining the delay. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
5
Court is the award passed by the LAC Court. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, remedy is available for the petitioners to challenge the same by filing an appeal before this Court. She further contended that as per the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.100552/2014 DD on 16.02.2015, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the award by filing an appeal. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.
6
Without passing any order on the application, the Reference Court has passed the award. Being aggrieved by same, the State preferred MFA No.100552/2014 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 16.02.2015, has disposed of the appeal as not maintainable. This Court reserved liberty to challenge the award by filing an appeal. The order passed in the aforesaid appeal is as under:
“ Sri. Ramesh N. Misale, learned counsel, accepts notice for respondent No.6. Registry to indicate the name accordingly.
2. The instant appeal is filed by the State and the Land Acquisition Officer. The acquisition is for the benefit of the 6th respondent Nigam. As held by a Division Bench of this Court, the instant appeal filed by the State and the Land Acquisition would not be maintainable.
3. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, however, seeks liberty to challenge the award. Said liberty is reserved subject to the appellants explaining the delay in filing the appeal.
In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.”
under:
54. Appeal in proceedings before Court .- Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) applicable to appeals from original decrees and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any
7
enactment of the time being, in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court subject to the provisions contained in Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in Order XLV thereof.
It is clear from the provision of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act that, against the decree passed by the reference Court, an appeal lies to the High Court.
In view of the earlier order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.100552/2014, the
writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
kmv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed by a petitioner who was wrongly arrayed as a respondent in Land Acquisition reference proceedings and granted liberty to appeal is maintainable when an appeal lies under
The Assst. Executive Engineer, KNNL
The State of Karnataka
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
