Gowramma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri Dyavappa, Vs the Prl. Secretary

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER ON I.A. NOS.1 TO 3 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, MANDYA DATED 28-06-2025 IN LAC.NO.52/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-K, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of Late Smt. Gowramma and has called in question the order dated 28.06.2025 passed in LAC No.52/2018 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Mandya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Court’ for short), whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC, Order XXII Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to bring him as the legal heir of the deceased claimant on record, to set aside abatement and to condone delay, came to be dismissed. The petitioner contends that the District Court has rejected

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51083 WP No. 26800 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the applications mechanically without considering the documentary evidence establishing his exclusive entitlement to the acquired land and without appreciating that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the reference is adjudicated on merits.

¶29

Brief facts

¶30

The land bearing Sy No. 111/1, measuring 0.33 guntas of Thalashasana Village originally belonged to Smt. Gowramma, who had filed a Section 18 reference seeking enhancement of compensation, which was registered as LAC 52/2018. During the pendency of the proceedings, Smt. Gowramma died on 20.04.2019 and it is averred that the petitioner under a family partition dated 21.06.2008, the suit property has been exclusively allotted to him and that consequently mutation entry and the revenue record entries stand in his name. The petitioner filed application for bringing him as the L.R on record. The District Court by the impugned order dismissed all the applications.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51083 WP No. 26800 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Survey No. 111/1 was allotted exclusively to him under a family partition and revenue records including the mutation and the RTC reflect his name thereby establishing that he is the person interested in the reference proceedings. Other legal heirs have no claim or objections of his being brought on record and the District Court erred in holding that the other L.Rs are necessary parties. It is contended that the District Court failed to appreciate that the documents such as partition deed, mutation entry, geneological tree and RTC were placed before it but were not considered. It is further submitted that the District Court has failed to consider that the legal representative entitled under partition is a proper person to prosecute the claim.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

¶35

the respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner has not explained the long delay of 3 years between the death of Gowramma and filing of the LR application and that the

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51083 WP No. 26800 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

petitioner failed to produce the genealogical tree issued by the revenue authorities or any primary document to show that he is the sole legal heir or entitled exclusively to the acquisition compensation. Despite the matter pending since 2018, the petitioner took no steps for nearly 6 to 7 years to pursue the reference and the District Court rightly dismissed the application since the petitioner did not appear before the Court and failed to establish his legal status with admissible documents. Allowing substitution after such a long period would prejudice the respondents and defeat the statutory scheme of abatement and that the order of the District Court warrants no interference.

¶39

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record.

¶40

The District Court has dismissed the I.As solely on the ground of delay and absence of other legal heirs being made as parties, without examining whether the petitioner is in fact the only person entitled to compensation arising from the acquisition of Survey No.

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:51083 WP No. 26800 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

111/1. The impugned order suffers from non-consideration

¶44

of the relevant material and failure to comply the principles of natural justice and also relating to the substitution of the legal heirs in the reference proceedings. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of the claim of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to remit the matter back to the District Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly this Court pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶47

(ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed in

¶48

LAC No. 52 of 2018 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Mandya, is hereby set aside.

¶49

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the District Court for fresh consideration of IA Nos. I to III in

¶50

7 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:51083 WP No. 26800 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

accordance with law after affording due

¶54

opportunity to all the parties.

¶55

(iv) The petitioner is at liberty to furnish all the necessary documents to substantiate his claim regarding his status as the only legal heir of the deceased applicant.

¶56

(v) The parties shall appear before the District Court on 17.12.2025 without awaiting further notice.

¶57

All the contentions of the parties, including those relating to the petitioner's relationship with the deceased claimant are kept open to be adjudicated by the District Court on its own merits.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶60

CKL/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Gowramma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri Dyavappa, v. the Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowramma Since Dead by Her Lrs., Sri Dyavappa, v. the Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Muniyappa E Vs the State of Karnataka

Chrysolite Property Developments Private Limited Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Mahadeva C Vs State of Karnataka

Smt N Anusuya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R. Shantha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B v Ramachandra Reddy Vs State of Karnataka