Allowed

Smt. Basamma Dead v. M v Shankaraiah

Karnataka HC20 Dec 2023MSA/99/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous second appeal concerned the modification of a land acquisition judgment based on a joint settlement. The appellants and specific respondents mutually agreed to share compensation in a 65:35 ratio. The court accepted the settlement and modified the impugned orders accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and award dated 20.09.2013 and the order dated 31.10.2006 are modified to allow 65% compensation to the appellant and 35% to respondents 5(a) and 5(b).

Smt. Basamma Dead Vs M v Shankaraiah — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46762 MSA No. 99 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2013 (LA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. G.K. BASAMMA DEAD

¶8

APPELLANT NO.2 IS TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.1 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.09.2019

¶9

V. RUDRESH

¶10

S/O LATE R. VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶11

RESIDENT OF HOSPITAL ROAD, HIRIYUR,

¶12

CHITRADURGA DIST.-577598.

¶13

V. MAMATHA DEAD

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

APPELLANT NO.2 IS TREATED AS LR'S OF DECEASED APPELLANT NO.3 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.09.2019

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT NO.2;

¶18

VIDE ORDER DATED 13.09.2019 APPELLANT NO.2 IS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 3)

¶19

AND:

¶20

M.V. SHANKARAIAH S/O VEERABADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O SECURITY WORKER VYSYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., TUMKUR-572 101

¶21

M.V. RAJASHEKARAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR

¶22

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46762 MSA No. 99 of 2013

¶23

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O K.E.B. COLONY, HIRIYUR-577598 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶24

M.V. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH S/O LATE VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O MAYAKALURHALLI VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK-577578 CHITRADURGA-DISTRICT.

¶25

M.C. RAJENDRAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

¶26

SMT. SOUBHAGYAMMA W/O M.C. RAJENDRAIAH R/O MYAKALURHALLI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK-577598 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶27

SMT. RADHAMMA DEAD BY HER LR'S

¶28

5(a) M.A.SETHURAM S/O M.H.ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O INDU NILAYA, BANK COLONY, AMOGHA LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA-577501.

¶29

5(b) A. GANESH S/O M.H.ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O NO.367, PUSHKALA NILAYA, MALLAPPA ROAD, SIRA GATE, TUDA LAYOUT, TUMKUR-572106.

¶30

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BOARD NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING,

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46762 MSA No. 99 of 2013

¶32

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶33

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (BANGALORE REGION) V.I.T.C. BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, NEAR VISHVESHWARAIAH MUSEUM, KASTURBA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. B.B.SAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 2(a) AND 3;

¶36

SRI. SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.5(a) AND 5(b); SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7)

¶37

THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.09.2013 PASSED IN M.A.(LAC).02/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE APPEAL MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2007 PASSED IN LAC.08/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) HIRIYUR, ENTITLING THE SECOND CLAIMANT TO BE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED AND DEPOSITED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶38

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in M.A.(LAC) No.2/2013 by which, the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:46762 MSA No. 99 of 2013

¶43

judgment and award dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Hiriyur in LAC No.8/2006 was modified.

¶44

When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, the parties have filed a joint memo, which reads as follows:-

¶45

"The Appellant No.2 and Respondent No.5(a) and 5(b) mutually agreed to receive the compensation amount awarded in LAC No.8/2006 and deposited before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Hiriyur as under:

¶46

The appellant No.2 agreed to receive 65% of the compensation amount awarded with accrued interest thereon and Respondent No.5(a) and 5(b) agreed to receive 35% of the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon. The both the appellant No.2 and Respondent No.5(a) and 5(b) agreed to receive the amount in deposit in above said proportion. It is respectfully submitted that Respondent No.5(b) has no objection for Respondent No.5(a) receiving the entire 35% of the compensation amount.

¶47

It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to dispose of the top noted appeal by granting 65% of the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon to the appellant No.2 deposited in LAC.8/2006 before the

¶48

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46762 MSA No. 99 of 2013

¶49

Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) Hiriyur and 35% to Respondent No.5(a) and 5(b) by modifying the Judgment and award passed in MA(LAC).2/2013 dated 20.09.2013 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I at Chitradurga in the interest of justice and equity.

¶50

Therefore the appellant No.2 and Respondent No.5(a) and 5(b) prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dv) Hiriyur, to release the amount in deposit in LAC.8/2006 in the above said proportion to the appellant No.2 and Respondent No.5(a) and 5(b) in the interest of justice and equity."

¶51

The terms of the joint memo is perused and the same being just and proper, are accepted. As a result of the settlement, appellant No.2 shall be entitled to receive 65% of the compensation amount along with other statutory benefits and interest, while respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b) shall be entitled to 35% of the compensation amount along with statutory benefit and interest. If there is any dispute between respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b) and any of their siblings, they shall work it out amongst themselves only in respect of 35% of the compensation.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:46762 MSA No. 99 of 2013

¶54

In token of acceptance of terms of the joint memo, appellant No.2 and respondent Nos.5(a) and 5(b) and their respective counsel have signed the order sheet of this Court.

¶55

This appeal is therefore disposed off in terms of the joint memo. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in M.A.(LAC) No.2/2013 as well as the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hiriyur in LAC No.8/2006 are modified in terms of the joint memo.

¶56

The Court fee paid by the appellants is ordered to

¶57

be refunded to appellant No.2 in accordance with law.

¶58

In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand rejected.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

PMR

¶61

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt. Basamma Dead v. M v Shankaraiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Basamma Dead v. M v Shankaraiah

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

Mr. Pravin Jagannath Moily Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Blany D'Souza Vs Mr Rudolf Valerian D Souza

Mrs Salome Francis Vs Mr Peter Santhosh Francis

Sri Mohammed Imtiyaz Vs Sri K N Malikarjuna

Smt. Rajeshwari. H. R. Vs Sri. Ramakrishnappa

Mrs Nilofer Khanum Vs Mr Syed Mehmood Ali