Karnataka High Court
Smt.Sujata @ Nirmala W/O ... vs The Deputy Chief Engineer on 21 December, 2021
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
R.P. No.100064/2020
BETWEEN
SMT.SUJATA @ NIRMALA
W/O CHANDRASHEKAR KATTI
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GANGAVATHI,
TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LAXMAN T MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE
AND SRI.N.J.APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
(CONSTRUCTION),
SOOUTH-WEST RAILWAYS DIVISION NO.3,
CLUB ROAD, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580009.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MUNIRABAD-MEHABOOB NAGAR
RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT,
SINDHANOOR,
DIST: RAICHUR-584101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.AJAY U PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R1 & 2,
SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP, FOR R3)
:2:
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING TO THE REASONS STATED ABOVE THE ORDER DATED
24.08.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.106373/2018 (LA-RES) MAY KINDLY BE REVIEWED AND
APPROPRIATE ORDER REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2020
MAY KINDLY BE PASSED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The above review petition has been filed seeking
review of the order dated 24.08.2020 passed in
W.P.No.106373/2018.
2. The contention of Sri.Laxman T Mantagani, learned
counsel for the review petitioner is that the aforesaid
order has been passed on the basis of the
submissions/concession made by the learned HCGP as
regards the compensation having already been
determined and only disbursal remaining.
3. He submits that though the compensation had been
determined, the petitioner is entitled to seek for
enhancement of the same in view of the compensation
having been enhanced as regards similarly situate
land which is subject matter of the same notification
having been awarded a higher compensation by
exercising the right under Section 28-A of the Land
Acquisition Act.
4. Sri.Ajay U Patil, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the
compensation which had been enhanced by the
Reference Court has been set aside by this Court and
the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
5. Be that as it may, the submission made by
Sri.Laxman T Mantagani, learned counsel for the
review petitioner being one in the nature of a claim as
regards higher compensation would not amount to a
ground for review of the judgment.
6. Hence, in my considered opinion the review petition is
not maintainable. It is however, made clear that
irrespective of the name of the petitioner not having
been mentioned in the 4(1) notification or in the final
notification, since the admitted fact being that the
petitioner is the owner of a portion of the land which
has been acquired by respondent No.2 for the benefit
of respondent No.1, the petitioner would be entitled to
avail all remedies available under law including the
remedy for enhancement of the compensation, if they
are so entitled to. The mere non-mention of the name
of the petitioner in the 4(1) notification or 6(1)
notification will not be a ground to deny the petitioner
of higher compensation.
7. Though the name of the petitioner has been included
in the revenue records on account of a Phodi which
occurred subsequent to the final notification, it is
made clear that since they are admittedly the land
owners they would be entitled for compensation
irrespective of the Phodi being carried out either
subsequent to 4(1) notification or 6(1) notification.
8. It is also made clear that respondent No.1 beneficiary
would also be entitled to object to and or contest any
claim made by the petitioner before the Reference
Court, in accordance with law.
9. With the above observation, the review petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sh
