Partly allowed

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri v. Sanjeev Kishore

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2023CCC/100125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In intra-court appeal, the Division Bench modified the Single Judge's order which had granted employment to a land loser under a specific circular. The Bench held the subsequent circular inapplicable and remitted the matter for reconsideration. Contempt petition dropped.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.10.2022 modified by deleting reference to Circular dated 16.07.2010 in operative part; matter remitted to appellants to reconsider application within one month; contempt petiti

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri Vs… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100125 OF 2023 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.100157 OF 2023

¶8

IN CCC NO. 100125 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI GADIGEPPA S/O. MUTTAPPA HANAMAR ALIAS KURI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SULIKERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT 587205.

¶10

(BY SRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ROHAN HADIMANI T

¶13

Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Date: 2023.09.25 11:39:17 +0530

¶14

SANJEEV KISHORE, THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI, TQ.HUBBALLI, DIST.DHARWAD PIN-580020

¶15

…RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

¶16

(BY SRI M.B. KANAVI, CGSC)

¶17

THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR DISOBEYING AN ORDER DATED 18/10/2022, PASSED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶20

W.P.NO.100586/2022 (S-RES) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

IN WA NO. 100157 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

¶22

THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN RAISINA MARG, NEW DELHI 110011.

¶23

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI, TQ HUBBALLI, DIST DHARWAD.

¶24

…APPELLANTS

¶25

(BY SRI M.B. KANAVI, CGSC)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SHRI GADIGEPPA S/O. MUTTAPPA HANAMAR ALIAS KURI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE R/O: SULIKERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT 587205.

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU.

¶29

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT DISTRICT, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT 587104.

¶30

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/ SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BAGALKOT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, NAVANAG, BAGALKOT 587104.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGAI, ADV. FOR R1; SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADV. FOR R2 TO R4)

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶35

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 100586/2022 (S-RES) DATED 18.10.2022 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE SAID PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶36

THIS PETITION AND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

This intra-court appeal by Indian Railways is directed against the order dated 18^th October, 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.100586 of 2022, whereby the said writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 herein, was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶39

The material on record discloses that the respondent No.1-Writ petitioner preferred the aforesaid writ petition inter alia contending that 15 guntas of land out of total extent of 3.40 acres in Survey No.39/3 of Sulikeri village of Badami Taluk, Bagalkot District, was acquired for the purpose of Kudachi Railway Project and award dated 23^rd September, 2013 was passed granting compensation in favour of respondent No.1. Subsequently, the appellant issued notification dated 16^th July, 2010 which contemplated providing of Group-D

¶40

- 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶41

employment in favour of the land-losers. Accodingly, appellant i.e. respondent No.1-writ petitioner applied for the said GroupD post by placing reliance upon the aforesaid notification dated 16^th July, 2010. The said request of the respondent No.1 was rejected by the appellants by issuing impugned endorsement at Annexure-K dated 14^th October, 2021 on the ground that the said Circular dated 16^th July, 2010 was superseded by subsequent Corrigendum dated 13^th August, 2010 and letter dated 28^th September, 2010, and also that the said Circular dated 16^th July, 2010 was withdrawn by subsequent Circular dated 11^th November, 2010.

¶42

Aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement at Annexure-K dated 14^th October, 2021, the respondent No.1-writ petitioner approached this Court in Writ petition No.100586 of 2022, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order, which is assailed in the present appeal.

¶43

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion the Circular dated 16^th July, 2010 was applicable to the parties, whereas the subsequent Circular dated 11^th November, 2019, was not

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶46

applicable to the parties. The learned Single Judge proceeded to uphold the claim of the respondent No.1 by holding as under:

¶47

“ 6. It is undersigned that the proceedings initiated for acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner culminated in passing the award dated 23.09.2013. The petitioner in terms of notice issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also the Circular dated 16.07.2010, submitted the application with the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to provide them appointment in group ‘D’ post in the Railway Department. As n the date when the award was passed and also the application was submitted by the petitioner, the circular dated 16.07.2010 was in force. In the case of T. Vijayalakshmi and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the application for grant of permission for construction of the building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the date of the said permission is granted. The respondents Nos.4 and 5 were under an obligation to consider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the Circular dated 16.07.2010 which was in force and not the Circular dated 11.11.2019, which superseded the earlier Circular. As per the Circular dated 16.07.2010, the petitioner was entitled for appointment in Group ‘D’ post in the Railway Department.

¶48

7. The petitioner was also issued with the land losers certificate dated 27.05.2014 in terms of the Circular dated 16.07.2010. Hence, the impugned communication issued

¶49

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶50

by the 5^th respondent is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The writ petition is allowed.

¶53

The impugned communication dated 11.2.2020 issued by the 5^th respondent vide Annexure-K is hereby quashed.

¶54

The respondent No.5 is hereby directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment in Group ‘D’ post in the railway Department in the light of the Circular dated 16.07.2010 at AnnexureB pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. ”

¶55

As can be seen from the impugned order, the learned

¶56

Single Judge merely places reliance upon Circular dated 16^th July, 2010 without referring to the Corrigendum dated 13^th August, 2010; or letter dated 28^th September, 2010.

¶57

Under these circumstances, the impugned order, insofar as it relates to reference to the Circular dated 16^th July, 2010 (Annexure-B), is factually incorrect and the appellant would have to be directed to be reconsider the application submitted by the respondent No.1-writ petitioner without

¶58

- 7 -

¶59

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶60

reference to Circular dated 11^th November, 2019 and in accordance with law. In other words, the Circular dated 11^th November, 2019 would not be applicable to the respondent No.1-writ petitioner who would be governed by Circular dated 16^th July, 2010, Corrigendum dated 13^th August, 2010 and Circular dated 28^th September, 2010, all of which had come into existence prior to passing of the award and in accordance with law.

¶61

In the result, appeal is disposed of. The impugned order dated 18^th October, 2022 is modified by deleting the words “ in the light of the circular dated 16^th July, 2010 at Annexure-B ” in the operative portion of the order. The appellants are directed to reconsider the application dated 11^th November, 2019, for appointment to Group ‘D’ post submitted by the respondent No.1-writ petitioner in accordance with law and without reference to Circular dated 11^th November, 2019, which is not applicable to the respondent No.1-writ petitioner. The appellants are directed to re-consider the claim of the respondent No.1-writ petitioner and take appropriate decision/pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10842-DB CCC No. 100125 of 2023 C/W WA No. 100157 of 2023

¶63

¶64

period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy this order.

¶65

In the light of the disposal of the main appeal, Contempt petition stands dropped.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16

¶69

lnn

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri v. Sanjeev Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Gadigeppa S/O Muttappa Hanamar Alias Kuri v. Sanjeev Kishore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Padmavati S/O Basaaraj Malammanavar Vs the Managing Partner

The State of Karnataka, Vs Mukand Limited

The State of Karnataka, Vs M/S Xindia Steels Ltd.

Ksrtc Retired Officers Vs Smt. Arati

Panchaksharayya Pattadayya Hiremath Vs He Land Acquisition Officer and

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Ashok S/O Basappa Harlapur