Dismissed

Sri Haji Mokhthar Mahothu v. Siddagangappa

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024MFA/2222/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant challenged an order declaring the judgment debtor entitled to compensation, arguing he held a beneficial interest via an agreement of sale. The court held that without a specific performance decree or the original agreement, the appellant had no right to claim compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation directed to the respondent No. 1; appellant's appeal dismissed.

Sri Haji Mokhthar Mahothu Vs Siddagangappa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2222 OF 2013 (LAC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. HAJI MOKHTHAR MAHOTHU C/O ABDUL KHADIR, NO.138/4/2, PIPELINE-EAST, KASTURBA NAGAR, II MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SIDDAGANGAPPA S/O LATE GANGAPPA, KOMMAGHATTA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SREELATHA SAINATH NO.533, 22^ND CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE-70.

¶14

SRI SYED IBRAHIM S/O SYED ALI, NO.42, 11^TH 'E' CROSS, PADARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶15

SRI. H.NARASIMHAIAH, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, NO.126, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, K.S.TOWN, BANGALORE-560 026.

¶16

(RESPONDENT NO.4 REPORTED TO BE DEAD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. NO LRS BROUGHT ON RECORD)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶19

RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 DELETED AS PER THE MEMO DATED 27.08.2014 AND ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT)

¶20

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, 1, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BANGALORE-MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR PROJECT, NO.3/2, KHENEY BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶23

VIDE ORDER DATED 27.08.2014 RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 ARE DELETED;

¶24

VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 APPEAL AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.01.2013 PASSED IN LAC NO.190/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE 49^TH ADDTIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESIONS JUDGE AND HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTIONS 30 AND 31(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The respondent in LAC No.190/2006 on the file of the XLIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and also holding concurrent charge of the Court of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶30

to as ‘the Reference Court’) has filed this appeal challenging an order dated 23.01.2013 by which the Reference Court allowed the reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') in part and declared that the respondent No.1 herein is the only person entitled to the compensation determined

¶31

by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) in respect of the land measuring 28 guntas in Sy. No.184 situate at Kommaghatta village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk (henceforth referred to as 'the land in question / land acquired') and that respondent No.1 herein was entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired land for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment.

¶32

The State Government acquired the land

¶33

belonging to the respondent No.1 herein in terms of a preliminary notification dated 19.12.1998 which was

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶35

followed by the final notification dated 05.07.2003 under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. The possession of the property was taken over on 29.12.2003 and an award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘L.A.O’) on 07.07.2005. After receipt of the notice of award, the appellant herein filed an objection against release of compensation to the respondents alleging that the respondent No.1 herein, who being the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.184 of Kommaghatta village measuring 0.30 guntas had formed a private layout comprising of 12 sites, which he agreed to sell and executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour on 08.02.1995 and therefore, he was entitled to the compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘L.A.O’) referred the case for resolution before the Reference Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Act which was registered in LAC No.190/2006 and the Reference Court took up proceedings. The appellant and the respondents filed claim petitions following which claimant No.1/respondent

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶37

No.1 herein and claimant No.5 / appellant herein were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively and they marked documents as Exs.P1 to Ex. P12. The Reference Court held that the appellant herein had admitted that the respondent No.1 herein was the owner of the land acquired, but the appellant herein claimed that he had purchased the land acquired from the respondent No.1 herein and to substantiate the same, he relied upon Ex.P11, which was a certified copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 08.02.1995, and Ex.P12 - joint declaration letter. The Reference Court held that the Exs.P11 and P12 relied upon by the appellant herein did not confer any title in his favour in respect of the land acquired and on the contrary, Exs.P1 to P7 produced by the respondent No.1 herein proved his right, title and interest in respect of the land acquired. It further held that the agreement of sale was not produced. Therefore, the Reference Court held that the respondent No.1 herein/claimant No.1 alone was entitled for the compensation amount awarded in the case

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶40

and accordingly, rejected the claim of the claimant No.5/appellant herein.

¶41

Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant

¶42

has filed this appeal.

¶43

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the original of the agreement of sale and the power of attorney was lost when the appellant was travelling in a train on 06.03.1995 to Banaras and that a friend of the appellant had filed a complaint at Raichur railway/police station in Crime No.15/1995. He contended that the respondent No.1 and Sri Rudrappa, Sri Venkatamuniyappa and Sri K.T. Dayanand had made a declaration admitting the execution of the agreement of sale and therefore, it was the appellant who was entitled to claim compensation as the agreement acted as a charge on the property.

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 contended that the title of the respondent No.1 to the land acquired is not in dispute. He contends that the appellant has no title or any rival title in respect

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶47

of the land in question to claim compensation. Therefore,

¶48

he contends that even if the respondent No.1 had executed an agreement of sale and had also authorized the appellant in terms of a power of attorney to encumber the portions of the land acquired, then it is for the appellant to establish the same before the competent Civil Court and the appellant has no right to claim compensation determined by the L.A.O.

¶49

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

¶50

A perusal of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act

¶51

makes it clear that a person who has a beneficial right, title or interest in a property is alone entitled to question the award of compensation in favour of any other person.

¶52

In the case on hand, the appellant admits title of the respondent No.1 to the land in question but contends that the respondent No.1 had executed an agreement of sale and power of attorney in his favour. The agreement of sale

¶53

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13987 MFA No. 2222 of 2013

¶54

was not produced before the Reference Court but an attempt was made by the appellant herein to prove the agreement by marking Ex.P12, a joint declaration made by persons who were not interested in the land. Even if such an agreement was executed, that did not confer any title upon the appellant but conferred only an interest to obtain a decree of specific performance. Therefore, the appellant could not resist the release of compensation determined by the L.A.O to respondent No.1. Hence, the Reference Court was right in rejecting the claim of the appellant herein and in directing the release of the compensation to the respondent No.1 herein. There is no error committed by the Reference Court warranting interference by this Court.

¶55

Hence, this appeal lacks merit and same is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

SMA

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Sri Haji Mokhthar Mahothu v. Siddagangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Haji Mokhthar Mahothu v. Siddagangappa

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. Thimmajamma Vs Sri. Kariyappa @ Kariyanna

Shri Manjunath K Vs Shri H R Ravichandra

Smt Nannibee Vs Smt Gangamma

Sri Ramachandra Vs Union of India

Mrs. Gowramma Vs Mrs. a. C. Sharadamma

Smt Aruna Vs Samuel Varughese