Allowed

The Chief Engineer Construction - v. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024WP/1107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court of Karnataka set aside an order rejecting the petitioners' application to recall a witness for cross-examination. The Court allowed the petitioners an additional opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the underlying land acquisition compensation case, subject to strict conditions to prevent procedural delays and ensure the witness'

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.10.2023 rejecting application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was set aside and application was allowed. Petitioners directed to cross-examine PW.1 next date without adjournment.

The Chief Engineer Construction - v Vs Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:8832 WP No. 1107 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 1107 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION-V, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560046.

¶9

THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER , CONSTRUCTION-III, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU- 560046

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. KUMAR M.N., CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER TUMAKURU-DAVANAGERE RAILWAY LINE, OPPOSITE ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMAKURU-572 106

¶15

JINADEVARU KUNCHANGI SREE PARSHWANATHA SWAMY CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST (REG.) REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE, G.P. UMASHANKAR, SON OF LATE G.N. PADMANABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.76, SIRA ROAD, NEAR SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU - 572106 …RESPONDENTS

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:8832 WP No. 1107 of 2024

¶18

(BY SRI. S.T. NAIK, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶19

SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.150/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKARU AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2023 PASSED ON I.A NO.IV/2022 IN LAC NO.150/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The respondent Nos.2 and 3 in LAC No.150/2018 pending consideration before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, (henceforth referred to as 'the Reference Court') have filed this petition challenging the correctness of an order dated 27.10.2023 by which an application (I.A. No.IV/2022) filed by them under Order

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:8832 WP No. 1107 of 2024

¶26

XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') was rejected.

¶27

The respondent No.1 herein initiated acquisition

¶28

of the land belonging to respondent No.2 for the benefit of the petitioners herein which was acquired in pursuance of a final notification on 09.02.2017. The respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the

¶29

Act of 2013') seeking enhancement of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which was registered as LAC No.150/2018. The evidence of the respondent No.2 herein was recorded on 22.06.2022. He was cross-examined on 14.07.2022. On 08.08.2022, PW.1 was absent. On 05.09.2022, an adjournment was sought and again on 12.10.2022, an adjournment was sought and the Reference Court treated further cross-examination of PW.1 as nil. An application (I.A. No.III/2022) was filed by

¶30

the petitioners herein to reopen the case from the stage of

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8832 WP No. 1107 of 2024

¶32

petitioners' arguments to evidence of respondent No.2. Later, the petitioners herein filed an application (I.A No.IV/2022) under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC., to recall PW.1 for cross-examination on behalf of petitioners. The application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC was rejected by the Reference Court on the ground that the petitioners herein did not take advantage of the opportunities earlier granted.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioners contend that PW.1 was not present on 08.08.2022 by which time he was partly cross-examined. The Reference Court thereafter listed the matter on 05.09.2022, 12.10.2022 on which day it treated the cross-examination of PW.1 as nil. He, therefore, submits that the Reference Court ought to have granted liberty to the petitioners to further crossexamine PW.1.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:8832 WP No. 1107 of 2024

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that the petitioners are selectively discriminating respondent No.2 in requesting the Reference Court to cross-examine PW.1 while in similar cases, the petitioners have not cross-examined any of the other land losers. He further submits that a memorandum

¶38

of facts is filed along with an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC., which did not mention any reason for not cross-examining PW.1 on 12.10.2022.

¶39

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶40

learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶41

Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Reference Court must have given adequate opportunity, does not appeal to this Court as the petitioners are also litigants before the Reference Court and therefore, they are bound to take advantage of the opportunities granted to them by the Reference Court. Therefore, they cannot allege that no sufficient opportunity

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:8832 WP No. 1107 of 2024

¶43

was granted to them to cross-examine PW.1. Nonetheless, since the petitioners are the beneficiaries of the acquisition, they have to be provided with an additional opportunity to establish their case that the compensation determined by the respondent No.1 is just and proper. However, this cannot go without any conditions, but has to be tempered with condition so as to ensure that the petitioners do not procrastinate the matter having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 has lost land and has to rehabilitate itself by receiving compensation that may be determined.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, rejecting the application (I.A. No.IV/2022) filed by the petitioners herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in LAC No.150/2018 is set aside and the said application is allowed. However, the petitioners herein are directed to go on with the crossexamination of PW.1 on the next date of hearing without

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:8832 WP No. 1107 of 2024

¶46

¶47

fail subject to PW.1 appearing before the Reference Court and subject to the Reference Court having time to record the evidence of PW.1. It is made clear that if PW.1 is present on the next date, under no circumstances, the Reference Court shall entertain the request of the petitioners herein for an adjournment.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

SMA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 17

The Chief Engineer Construction - v. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Engineer Construction - v. Vs Special 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

Smt Sarvamangala Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri H Shivashankaraiah

Smt Prema Vs Sri Kemparaju K L

Sri Ashwath Narayana Vs Sri S Rajashekar

Smt. Vimala @ Akkamma Vs Smt.P. Pallavi

Smt Yashodha Adhikari Vs Sri K v Naidu