North West Karnataka Road ... vs Asst. Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 826 Kant

              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.71795/2012 (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.SHANTI BEERAPPA GOUDA
       AGE: 54 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

3.     KRISHNA BEERAPPA GOUDA
       AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

4.     BOLU BEERAPPA GOUDA
       AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

5.     MANESHWAR BEERAPPA GOUDA
       AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
                               2




6.     ANANDU BEERAPPA GOUDA
       AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

7.     LAXMI BEERAPPA GOUDA
       AGE: 34 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

8.     SUKRI KOM BEERAPPA GOUDA
       AGE: 76 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

9.     MANKALI PANDU GOUDA
       AGE: 44 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

10 .   NAGESH PANDU GOUDA
       AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

11 .   SOMA PANDU GOUDA
       AGE: 38 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

12 .   PARAMESHWAR PANDU GOUDA
       AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

13 .   GANAPI PANDU GOUDA
       AGE: 26 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
       TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA

14 .  NAGI KOM PANDU GOUDA
      AGE: 71 YEARS, R/O. TARAMAKKI, GOKARNA,
      TQ:KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA
                                             .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1,
    SRI.RAJASHEKAR BURJI, ADV. FOR R2-R7 & R9-R14,
    R8 SERVED)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
TH3E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
                                 3




JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
KUMTA IN LAC No.394/2006 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.394/2006 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 14 are the owners of the land bearing

Sy.No.501 measuring 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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.394/2006 is set aside.

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

SD/-

JUDGE MBS/-