Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 821 Kant
Judgement Date : 13 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
W.P.No.71796/2012 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFIER.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV.)
AND:
1. ASST. COMMISSIONER,
SUB-DIVISION, KUMTA,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
2. SMT.SHIVANNA TIMMANNA GOUDA
AGE: 61 YEARS, R/O. BIJJUR, GOKARNA KUMTA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
3. RAMA TIMMANNA GOUDA
AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O. BIJJUR, GOKARNA, KUMTA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
4. VENKATESH TIMMANNA GOUDA
AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. BIJJUR, GOKARNA, KUMTA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
5. LAXMI TIMMANNA GOUDA
AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O. BIJJUR, GOKARNA, KUMTA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
2
6. DATTATRAY TIMMANNA GOUDA
AGE: 22 YEARS, R/O. BIJJUR, GOKARNA, KUMTA
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
7. TULASI MANKALI GOUDA
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BELEHITLU, KUMTA TALUK,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
8. SUBBI HULIYAPPA GOUDA
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O.BIJJUR, GOKARNA TQ:KUMTA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
9. HULIYAMMA GANAPU GOUDA
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O.BIJJUR, GOKARNA TQ:KUMTA,
DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI.RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R2-R9)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
TH3E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
KUMTA IN LAC No.413/2006 DATED 24.04.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAIRNG 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and
award passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Kumta in LAC
No.413/2006 dated 24.04.2010 vide Annexure-B filed this writ
petition.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, the
State Government proposed to acquire the land for construction
of bus stand at Gokarn village has issued a preliminary
notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) in the year 1992.
Respondent Nos.2 to 9 are the owners of the land bearing
Sy.No.502/2 measuring 8½ guntas and 9½ guntas is acquired
by respondent No.1 for construction of the bus stand. The SLAO
has passed an award fixing the market value at Rs.1,770/- per
gunta along with 30% solatium and interest. Respondent Nos.2
to 9 being dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded
by the SLAO filed reference application under Section 18(1) of
the Act. The petitioner being the beneficiary was not impleaded
by respondent Nos.2 to 9 before the reference Court and an
award came to be passed by the reference Court fixing the
market value at Rs.14,950/- per gunta. As the petitioner being
the beneficiary was not made as party before the reference
Court, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
3. Having noticed the rival contentions, all that arises
for consideration is only as to whether the reference Court was
justified in enhancing the compensation without providing an
opportunity to the petitioner who is the beneficiary of the
acquisition. The said question is no more res integra inasmuch
as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Madhuvana
House Building Co-operative Society, Mysore Vs.
Basavarajappa and others (2012(1) AIR KAR R.22). While
considering the said case, had also taken into consideration the
dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had arrived at the
conclusion that the case for enhancement of compensation
cannot be considered in the absence of the beneficiary. The said
conclusion was in view of the provision contained in clause (c) of
Section 20 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act. In that view,
in the instant case, when it is evident that the petitioner who is
the beneficiary was not a party to the reference proceedings,
the judgment and award is liable to be set aside and the matter
is to be remitted to the reference Court for reconsideration in
accordance with law after providing opportunity to the petitioner
herein.
4. Since this Court has arrived at the conclusion that
the petitioner is a necessary party, the reference Court shall
permit the claimants/respondent Nos.2 to 9 to amend the
reference petition and incorporate the name of the petitioner
herein as an additional respondent to the proceedings without
the formality of filing an application for the said purpose. Since
the petitioner is before this Court seeking an opportunity and
this Court on granting the opportunity has also directed the
land-loser/respondent Nos.2 to 9 to implead the petitioner, all
the parties herein shall appear before the reference Court
without any further notice from the reference Court on
23.02.2021 as the first date of appearance.
5. Considering that the matter had been decided at the
first instance and is now being remitted for reconsideration, the
reference Court shall keep this aspect in view and take up the
matter for consideration in an expeditious manner and dispose
of the reference petition as expeditiously as possible but not
later than six months from the date of the first appearance
which has been fixed by this Court. Within the said period, the
petitioner shall avail opportunity to put forth their contentions
before the Court without delaying the proceedings.
6. In terms of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The judgment and award dated 24.04.2010 passed by the Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.), Kumta in LAC No.413/2006 is set aside.
All the contentions of the parties are kept open.
SD/-
JUDGE MBS/-
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!