Swamirao S/O Laxmanrao Since ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 219 Kant

                                1



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                             PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                              AND
      THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

          WRIT APPEAL NO.50219/2013 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:
Swamirao S/o Laxmanrao,
Since deceased by his LRs.
1.    Smt. Subadrabai W/o Late Swamirao Patil,
      Aged about 64 years, Occ: Household work,
2.    Promod S/o Late Swamirao Patil,
      Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business,
3.    Dattarayarao S/o Late Swamirao Patil,
      Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,
4.    Kanchana D/o Late Swamirao Patil,
      Aged about 23 years, Occ: Student,
5.    Gururaj S/o Late Swamirao Patil,
      Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business & Agriculture,
6.    Sabita D/o Late Swamirao Patil,
      Aged about 46 years, Occ: Govt. Servant,
7.    Arun Kumar S/o Late Swamirao Patil,
      Aged about 38 years, Occ: Private work,
      All R/o New Raghavendra Colony,
      Brahampur, Gulbarga.
                                                    ... Appellants
(By Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, Advocate)
                                  2



AND:
1.     The Secretary,
       Department of Revenue,
       M.S. Building, Bangalore-1.
       (amended as per order Dtd. 21.09.2016)

2.     The Chief Manager,
       Land Acquisition,
       Upper Krishna Project,
       Bagalkot - 587 101.

3.     The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
       UKP, Indi, Dist. Bijapur - 586 101.
                                                 ..... Respondents

(By Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, HCGP)

       This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 14.02.2013
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.83160-164/2011
(LA-RES) and restore the writ petition and pass such other orders
as deemed fit by this Court under the facts and circumstances of
the case.

      This appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day,
S.R.Krishna Kumar J, delivered the following:

                           JUDGMENT

This appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioners in

W.P.Nos.83160-164/2011 is directed against the impugned

order dated 14.02.2013, whereby the learned Single Judge

dismissed the said petition filed by the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In the writ petition, it was the specific contention

of the petitioners that the subject lands of the

petitioners/appellants were acquired by the respondents and

the respondents did not disburse/pay compensation in favour

of the petitioners and instead issued the impugned

letters/endorsements dated 31.08.2009, 06.12.2010 and

06.12.2010 respectively informing the petitioners that they

were not entitled to the said compensation amount, pursuant

to which the petitioners preferred the aforesaid writ petitions

before the learned Single Judge. Though the respondents-

State contested the said petition by filing their statement of

objections, they did not produce any documents in support of

their defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate

for the respondents, the learned Single Judge came to the

conclusion that the entire acquisition proceedings was a result

of fraud and collusion between the writ petitioners and the

respondents and in addition to dismissing the petition on the

ground that it lack merit, the learned Single Judge further

directed investigating into the alleged illegalities stated to have

been committed by the petitioners and the respondents.

Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned

Single Judge dismissing the writ petition on the premise that

the petitioners were guilty of collusion and fraud practiced by

them along with the respondents, the appellants are before

this Court by way of the present appeal.

4. It is relevant to state that though the findings and

observations have been recorded against the respondents-

State by the learned Single Judge, the respondents have not

chosen to prefer any appeal against the impugned order

passed by the learned Single Judge. However, the

respondents have filed an affidavit dated 14.12.2016

producing several documents including correspondence, etc.,

which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the

issues in controversy between the parties.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the memorandum of appeal and referring to the

material on record, learned counsel for the appellants invited

our attention to the application-I.A.1/2014 dated 12.02.2014

filed by the appellants for permission to produce additional

documents. It is submitted that a perusal of the documents

produced by the appellants by way of additional evidence in

the present appeal, in addition to being relevant, material and

essential for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal

also indicate that the findings and observations recorded by

the learned Single Judge in the impugned order is not only

contrary to the material on record, but also contrary to the

aforesaid documents and as such it is necessary that the

additional documents are received on record and the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set

aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned Single

Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, in addition to reiterating the various contentions

urged in the aforesaid affidavit dated 14.12.2016, submits that

the documents produced by the appellants along with

I.A.1/2014 and the documents produced by the respondents

along with the aforesaid affidavit dated 14.12.2016 clearly

indicate that the said documents are relevant, material and

essential for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. It

is therefore submitted that the appeal be disposed of

accordingly.

7. Insofar as the application-I.A.1/2014 filed by the

appellants for permission to produce the additional

documents/evidence is concerned, in the light of the findings

and observations recorded by the learned Single Judge that

the said acquisition proceedings are the outcome/result of

fraud and collusion practiced by the appellants and the

respondents, a perusal of the documents sought to be

produced along with I.A.1/2014 clearly indicate that the same

are relevant, material and essential for the purpose of

adjudication of the present appeal. Under these

circumstances, I.A.1/2014 has already been allowed by this

Court and the documents produced by the appellants are

received on record; so also, the documents produced by the

respondents along with the affidavit dated 14.12.2016 are

permitted to be received on record.

8. As stated supra, in view of our finding recorded

herein before that the documents produced by the appellants

along with I.A.1/2014 as well as the documents produced by

the respondents along with the affidavit dated 14.12.2016

have an impact/bearing on not only the present appeal, but

also on the findings and observations recorded by the learned

Single Judge coupled with the fact that the said documents

are relevant, material and essential for the purpose of disposal

of the writ petition, we are of the considered opinion that the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves

to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the learned

Single Judge for reconsideration afresh in accordance with

law after considering and appreciating the documents

produced by the appellants as well as the documents

produced by the respondents and after hearing both sides on

the merits of their rival contentions.

9. In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

i. I.A.1/2014 having already been allowed on

23.11.2021, the documents produced by the

appellants are received on record; so also, the

documents produced by the respondents along

with the affidavit dated 14.12.2016 are received

on record.

ii. The appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned

order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the learned

Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.83160-164/2011

is hereby set aside;

iii. The matter is remitted back to the learned Single

Judge for reconsideration afresh on merits in

accordance with law after considering and

re-appreciating the documents produced by the

appellants along with I.A.1/2014 as well as the

documents produced by the respondents along

with the affidavit dated 14.12.2016.

iv. All rival contentions between the parties are kept

open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

v. Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to

produce additional documents before the learned

Single Judge.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE LG