Allowed

Union of India v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2024WP/682/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by a land acquisition beneficiary challenging the delay and ex-parte nature of reference proceedings. The Court restored the reference case, set aside the ex-parte award, and ordered compensation payable by an official responsible for the procedural lapse.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous application allowed; ex-parte award set aside; reference proceedings restored with a deadline to conclude within six months; costs of Rs.2,00,000 awarded against the beneficiary and to b

Union of India Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 682 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 6513 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

IN W.P. NO.682/2024:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, CANTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 046. (BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., ADVOCATE)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, V.V. TOWER, 3^RD FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER BENGALURU URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

SRI. B.N. NARASIMHARAJU S/O. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE,

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶16

NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 123.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PRATHIBHA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NELAMANGALA, IN MISC.NO.15/2017 ON I.A.NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

IN W.P. NO.6513/2019:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, CENTRAL (CONSTRUCTIONS), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, NO.18, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶23

…PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. CHANDRACHUD A., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SRI. B.N. NARASIMHARAJU SON OF NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 123.

¶27

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (HASSAN-BENGALURU LINE) V.V. TOWERS, 3^RD FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶30

THE DISTRICT GOVERNMENT PLEADER BENGALURU URBAN AND RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. PRATHIBHA K.M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 2^ND JANUARY 2019 PASSED ON IA NO.8 AND 9 SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NELAMANGALA, IN EX.NO.1 OF 2014 [ANNEXURE-J AND K] AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO.8 AND 9 DATED 05.01.2019 AS PRAYED FOR IN ITS ENTIRETY.

¶34

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

W.P.No.682/2024 is filed by the beneficiary of the acquisition of land, challenging the correctness of an order dated 22.06.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala in Misc.No.15/2017 by which, an application (I.A.No.III) filed by it under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') was rejected.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶40

W.P.No.6513/2019 is filed by the beneficiary challenging an order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala in Ex.No.1/2014 by which, application (I.A.No.8) filed by it under Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 of CPC and application (I.A.No.9) under Section 151 of CPC to club Ex.No.1/2014 with Misc.No.15/2017 were rejected.

¶41

(i) The land bearing Sy.No.66/2 owned and possessed by the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 (respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6513/2019) was the subject matter of an acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the purpose of laying Bengaluru - Hassan Railway Broad-gauge line. An award was passed on 18.02.2003 determining the compensation at a sum of Rs.80/per sq.ft. along with other benefits and interest.

¶42

(ii) Respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of the market value and for enhancement of compensation. The claim was referred to the Civil Court in LAC No.95/2009. The beneficiary was described in the reference proceedings as "Executive Engineer (Constructions), Southern

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶44

Railways, No.18, Millers Road, Bangalore". Notice of the reference proceedings was purportedly served on the beneficiary represented by the aforesaid officer. However, since there was no representation for the beneficiary, proceedings before the reference Court was held ex-parte and an award was passed enhancing the compensation to a sum of Rs.600/- per sq. ft. along with other benefits and interest.

¶45

(iii) The respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 then filed Ex.No.1/2014 to execute the award. In the said execution proceedings, notice of the execution petition was served on the beneficiary. Thereafter, the beneficiary filed Misc.No.15/2017 to set aside the ex-parte award dated 26.04.2013 passed by the reference Court in LAC No.95/2009.

¶46

(iv) The beneficiary filed two applications in Ex.No.1/2014, one for staying the execution proceedings pending consideration of Misc.No.15/2017 and another application to club Misc.No.15/2017 along with Ex.No.1/2014.

¶47

(v) The beneficiary also filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in Misc.No.15/2017

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶49

detailing the circumstances under which, it could not contest LAC No.95/2009.

¶50

(vi) The Court in Misc.No.15/2017 rejected the said application in terms of impugned order dated 22.06.2023, while applications filed by the beneficiary in Ex.No.1/2014 were also rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 02.01.2019.

¶51

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the beneficiary is before this Court in these writ petitions.

¶52

The learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel submitted that the beneficiary was wrongly described as "Executive Engineer (Constructions), Southern Railways, No.18, Millers Road, Bangalore" and therefore, notice of the reference proceedings was not served. He contends that the beneficiary must have been described as represented by "Deputy Chief Engineer (Central), South Western Railways, No.18, Millers road, Bengaluru". He submitted that the District Court must have permitted the amendment of Misc.No.15/2017 so as to place on record the particulars of the concerned officer responsible for defending litigation. He also contends that the reference Court had referred to sale deeds executed in the year

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶54

2012 to enhance the market value of Rs.600/- per sq. ft. though the acquisition was in the year 2000. He therefore, contends that the award passed by the reference Court deserves reconsideration.

¶55

The learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 (respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6513/2019) contended that the Executive Engineer (Constructions) Southern Railways was also the officer of the beneficiary and notice of the reference proceedings was served on him. He submits that the entire office machinery of the South Western Railways in Bengaluru is situate at No.18, Millers Road, Bengaluru and therefore, notice issued to the Executive Engineer (Constructions), was sufficient notice to the South Western Railways and therefore, they must have taken steps to contest the proceedings. He also contends that there was inordinate delay in filing Misc.No.15/2017 and the beneficiary did not clearly mention when it came to know about the reference proceedings and hence, no indulgence can be shown to permit any amendment to Misc.No.15/2017 and also to stay the execution petition.

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶57

I have considered the submissions of the learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for the beneficiary as well as the learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 (respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6513/2019).

¶58

A perusal of the cause-title of the case before the reference Court shows that the beneficiary was described as "Executive Engineer (Constructions), Southern Railways, No.18, Millers Road, Bangalore". It is not known as to how the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 described the beneficiary as such. It is also not known whether the notice of the said reference proceedings was served on the beneficiary or not. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the claim of the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 that notice of the reference proceedings was served on the beneficiary. It is not in dispute that the proceedings before the reference Court were held ex-parte and an ex-parte award was passed enhancing the compensation from a sum of Rs.80/- per sq. ft. to Rs.600/- per sq.ft. It is indisputable that the impugned orders in these writ petitions are against interlocutory orders and the consideration of these writ petitions should be restricted to the correctness to those orders.

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶60

However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the acquisition was initiated somewhere during the year 2000 and the market value is enhanced to a sum of Rs.600/- per sq. ft., which could have a cascading effect resulting in a multitude of cases. This Court considers it appropriate to break away from the beaten track and allow Misc.No.15/2017 and direct the restoration of reference proceedings, so that the landloser and beneficiary gets the dispute regarding the market value of the property determined properly. The result of the reference proceeding can be spurred by issuing appropriate directions to the reference Court.

¶61

However, it is borne in mind that the Executive Engineer (Constructions), Southern Railways, No.18, Millers Road, Bengaluru, who was the respondent No.3 shown in the reference proceedings, ought to have been diligent in informing his superiors about the claim made by the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024. This could have avoided the beneficiary being placed ex-parte. The award was passed on 18.02.2003 thereby indicating that the landloser is deprived of the compensation for over two decades. Therefore, it is appropriate to compensate the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶63

(respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6513/2019) for the time lost in the litigation as well as opportunity lost.

¶64

In that view of the matter, the following

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) W.P.No.682/2024 is allowed .

¶67

(ii) Misc.No.15/2017 filed by the beneficiary pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala is allowed.

¶68

(iii) Consequently, the award dated 26.04.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala in LAC No.95/2009 is set aside.

¶69

The proceedings in LAC No.95/2009 is restored to file. As a result, execution proceedings in Ex.No.1/2014 pending consideration before the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala is also terminated.

¶70

(iv) This is however, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) payable by the beneficiary (petitioner herein)

¶71

11 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶73

to respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 (respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6513/2019), which shall be recovered from the concerned officer responsible for not informing the beneficiary about the service of notice in the reference proceedings.

¶74

(v) The beneficiary (petitioner herein) and the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 (respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6513/2019) shall appear before the reference Court in LAC No.95/2009 on 31.01.2025.

¶75

(vi) The reference Court is requested to dispose off the proceedings as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from 31.01.2025.

¶76

(vii) It is made clear that if the beneficiary does not pay the cost of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent No.3 in W.P.No.682/2024 (respondent No.1 in W.P.No.6513/2019) on the next date of hearing, the reference Court

¶77

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:52473 WP No. 682 of 2024 C/W WP No. 6513 of 2019

¶78

shall pass appropriate orders re-determining

¶79

the compensation payable at Rs.600/- per square feet.

¶80

(viii) In view of the order passed in W.P.No.682/2024, no orders need be passed in W.P.No.6513/2019. Consequently, W.P.No.6513/2019 is dismissed .

¶81

In view of disposal of the writ petitions, pending

¶82

I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶83

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶84

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Union of India v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. the State of Karnataka

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

Shri Gowrish S K Vs Sri Anil Kumar P

M/S Corporate Strategies Vs Smt Parvathi B

Smt Subbalakshmamma @ Subbamma Vs Sri G M Narayanaswamy

Major General (Retd) R.P. Ramachadnra Naidu Vs Mrs. Vijayamma

Jayamma Vs Girigowda

Sri. J M Gopal Vs Ms. Lahari Chinnappa