Remanded

K.A Venkatesha Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2023CRP/296/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition, the Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court. The Court held that the trial court erred in declaring the application time-barred without securing original records. The High Court directed the trial court to verify the date of service of the award notice from original documents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Trial Court to secure original records and reconsider the issue of limitation.

K.A Venkatesha Babu Vs Land Acquisition Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 296 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.A. VENKATESHA BABU S/O. K. ASHWATHNARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT PETE BEEDI HOLENARASIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI UMA SHANKAR M.N., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HASSAN.

¶12

CHIEF OFFICER

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HOLENARASIPURA.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI M. KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.02.2023 PASSED IN L.A.C NO.2/2017 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLENARASIPURA, REJECTING THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶23

This petition is filed challenging the order of the Trial Court in rejecting LAC No.2/2017 on the ground that there is a delay in filing the reference. Being aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the present revision petition is filed.

¶24

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that award notice was served on 25.06.2013 and original award notice is not placed before the Trial Court, even though application is filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 21.09.2021 and the first respondent has not produced the document as sought in the application filed by the petitioner invoking Order 11, Rule 14 of CPC and nonproduction of said document without any reason creates doubt and suspicion and the first respondent is withholding the crucial

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶26

document which is in their custody. The learned counsel would contend that Ex.R1 is a certified copy which is produced before the Court, wherein they contend that the same was served on 21.01.2023 and the same is disputed by the petitioner herein. The counsel also would contend that Ex.P10 is produced before

¶27

the Trial Court to show that the same was served on 25.06.2013 and signature was also made on the overleaf of the award notice and with an intention to avoid the same, the original is not placed before the Court. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there was no reference in the order of the Trial Court for having filed the application and the same was allowed and directed to produce the original, nothing is discussed in the order and erroneously rejected the application on the ground that the application was not filed within time. Hence, it requires interference.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 would submit that intimation was delivered and the original is not furnished. This Court also, vide order dated 28.07.2023, directed the leaned High Court Government Pleader to secure the records of LAO No.138/2009-2010. Learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶31

petitioner also brought to notice of this Court that only they have produced certified copy and letter was also received that the same is not in their custody and the same is also not discussed by the Trial Court while passing the order.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 i.e., the beneficiary would contend that the petitioner herein has not placed the material before the Court that the petition is filed in time. Hence, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the same on the ground that the same is barred by time.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶34

learned High Court Government pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also on perusal of the order sheet which is placed before this Court by the petitioner, it is clear that an application is filed on 18.03.2020 to summon the original records of LAO, wherein it is specifically contended that original records are required to consider the matter on merits and also on perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet of the Trial Court, it is very clear that the application was allowed and ordered to summon the documents. However, an endorsement is made on 21.10.2021

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶36

that letter was received that documents are not in their custody and the same is also not discussed in the order as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and unless the original documents are summoned in order to examine whether the petition is in time or not, the Trial Court ought not to have come to the conclusion that the same is barred by time. On perusal of Ex.P10 and the overleaf, it is specifically mentioned that award notice was received on 25.06.2013 and if the same is taken into consideration, the reference is in time. When such being the material on record, without securing the records, the Trial Court ought not to have considered LAC No.2/2017 in coming to the conclusion that the same is barred by limitation.

¶37

When an application is filed and the same is allowed, the Trial Court ought to have secured the original records and would have verified the same and instead, relied upon the document of Ex.R1 which is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that an insertion was made with regard to service of award notice. Hence, instead of awaiting for the records in LAO No.138/2009-2010, it is appropriate to set aside the order of the Trial Court and remand the matter to the Trial Court to secure the original records in

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶39

LAO No.138/2009-2010 as sought and reconsider the matter afresh and give a definite finding with regard to the date of service of award notice i.e., whether it was served on 25.06.2013 or 21.01.2013 and only Ex.R1 i.e., certified copy is produced before the Trial Court and not produced the original. If certified copy can be issued and what prevented in producing the original.

¶40

When there is a dispute with regard to the document of Ex.R1 and when the petitioner also produced the document of Ex.P10 and the same is contrary to the very contention of the respondents, the matter requires fresh consideration. This Court also secured the original records from the Trial Court and on verification of the same, it is seen that no such original document in the records and on perusal of Ex.P10, there is an endorsement in the overleaf of award notice dated 21.01.2013 that the same was received on 25.06.2013 and on perusal of Ex.R1, according to the respondents, it was served on 21.01.2013 i.e., within a span of 2 days of award notice and nothing is stated with regard to the mode of service of the same within 2 days and the Trial Court also shall secure the original of Ex.R1 and its original entire file in LAO

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶43

No.138/2009-2010 and consider whether it was served on

¶44

21.01.2013 or 25.06.2013 and dispose off the same on merits.

¶45

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶46

following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶49

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.02.2023 passed in LAC No.2/2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in view of the observations made hereinabove.

¶50

(iii) The Trial Court is directed to secure the records in LAO No.138/2009-2010 and the original of Ex.R1 and consider the petition whether the same is in time or not.

¶51

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 12.09.2023 without expecting any notice from the Trial Court.

¶52

(v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from 12.09.2023.

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:28761 CRP No. 296 of 2023

¶54

¶55

(vi) The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Trial Court, forthwith.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

K.A Venkatesha Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.A Venkatesha Babu v. Land Acquisition Officer

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

B.Krishnamurthy Vs Venkatalakshmamma

Sri. H. B. Santhosh Kumar Jain Vs Smt. K. Nirmala

Sri J Devilal Bafna Vs Sri Mariyappa K B

Sri B.S. Kendagannappa Vs Sri B.S. Devaraju

B G Basavegowda Vs Dharma Nayaka

Sri Shivapartha Vs Sri B R Babuswamy