Sharnappa And Anr vs The Chief Engineer And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 440 Kant

                            1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH


      WRIT PETITION No.202335/2021 (LA-RES)


BETWEEN:

1.     SHARNAPPA S/O NEELAPPA
       AGE: 41 YEARS
       OCC: AGRICULTURE
       R/O SHIVUR, TQ.AFZALPUR
       DIST.KALABURAGI-585301.

2.     SIDDAPPA S/O NEELAPPA
       (SPA HOLDER BEFORE COURT BELOW)
       AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
       R/O SHIVUR, TQ.AFZALPUR
       DIST.KALABURAGI-585301
                                     ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE CHIEF ENGINEER
       KNNL IPC ZONE
       KALABURAGI-585103.

2.     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
       KNNL, BLI PROJECT
       KNNL DIVISION
       AFZALPUR-585301
                                2




3.    THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
      MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA
      KALABURAGI-585 102

4.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
      KALABURAGI-585 102
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA
 FOR R3 & R4; SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR,
 ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN LACA NO. 778/2017 DATED
03.03.2020 ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 148 R/W
SECTION 151 OF CPC, BY III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT KALABURAGI AS PER ANNEXURE-E TO THEIR WRIT
PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT PETITIONER TO PAY
THE DEFICIT COURT FEE FOR GETTING ENHANCED
COMPENSATION AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 10.06.2019,
PASSED BY AFORESAID COURT.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                           ORDER

Though this writ petition is listed for Preliminary

Hearing, by the consent of the parties, it is taken up for

final disposal.

2. Heard Sri Shivasharana Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri Gourish S.

Khashampur, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.1 and 2.

3. A perusal of the record would indicate that the

petitioners herein are claiming to be the owner of the land

bearing Sy.No.24/1/6 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas and in

Sy.No.24/2/7 measuring 38 guntas situated at Shivur

village, Afzalpur taluk, Kalaburagi district. The State

government has issued notification under Section 4(1) of

the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') on 12.06.2008 proposing to acquire the land for the

purpose of Bhima Lift Irrigation project and accordingly,

the land belonging to the petitioners were acquired.

Thereafter, award came to be passed by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer on 06.12.2010 determining the

compensation at Rs.40,000/- per acre for wet land and

Rs.32,000/- per acre for dry land. Being not satisfied with

the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, claimants

have preferred reference under Section 18 (1) of the Act

and the same was registered as LAC No.854/2012 on the

file of the Senior Civil Judge Afzalpur. The trial Court re-

determined the market value of the property and

enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre for

wet land and Rs.2,00,000/- for dry land, by its award

dated 04.07.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, the

claimants have preferred LAC (Appeal) No.778/2017

before the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge at

Kalaburagi under Section 54 of the Act, which came to be

disposed of on 10.06.2019, whereby the Appellate Court

enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,04,800/- per acre for

wet land. In the said appeal, the petitioners/claimants

restricted their claim for Rs.3,95,000/- per acre.

Thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed the application

under Sections 148 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to

extend the time for depositing the deficit Court fee and

pursuant to the same, as there was delay in filing the

appeal, appellate Court has condoned the delay in filing

the application. It is also forthcoming from the impugned

order that the trial Court after considering the material on

record, had come to the conclusion that since the

claimants herein had restricted their claim for

Rs.3,95,000/- per acre and have not deposited the deficit

Court fee, despite the order was passed on 09.07.2019

and taking into consideration the observation made at

paragrpah-5 of the impugned order, rejected the

application.

4. Having considered the finding recorded by the

appellate Court and taking into consideration that the

petitioners have restricted their claim to Rs.3,95,000/- per

acre and if such application is accepted and same would

cause open the floodgate whereby similarly placed

claimants would seek for enlarging the period. In that view

of the matter, I do not find any favourable ground to

accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioners. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR