Karnataka High Court
Maliganayaka vs The Assistant Commissioner on 16 March, 2022
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3743/2022 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN :
MALIGANAYAKA
S/O MARINANJANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT SUTTURU VILLAGE,
BILIGERE HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 301.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VEERABHADRA SWAMY H P.,ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION, MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 024.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
TOWN MUNICIPAL,
NANJANGUD TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.07.2021 MADE
IN REVIEW PETITION NO.03/2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST
2
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
MYSORE IN ANNEXURE-A; RECONSIDER THE REVIEW
PETITION NO.03/2019 AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 04.07.2019 PASSED IN LAC NO.04/2018
AND AWARD COMPENSATION AS PER EX.P.2 SALE DEED
IN ANNEXURE-B AND C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner's reference under Section 64 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013') in LAC
No.04/2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge
and Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Mysuru (for short, 'the reference Court') is
rejected by the impugned order dated 04.07.2019, and
by the subsequent impugned order dated 19.07.2001,
the reference Court has rejected the petitioner's
subsequent review petition in Review Petition
No.3/2019 under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
The petitioner has filed the aforesaid review
petition contending that one of the exhibits viz., Ex.P2,
a sale deed marked on his behalf has not been
considered while deciding the reference. The reference
Court has rejected the review petition observing that
Ex.P2 is indeed considered, though there is an error in
mentioning the details of the sale under this exhibit,
while re-determining the market value of the land at
Rs.1,74,487/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Four
Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Seven Only) for the
subject land (an agricultural land) as of the year of the
preliminary notification, it has opined that the market
value of agricultural land cannot be based on a small
parcel of land viz., 1.04 guntas for which Ex.P2 is
executed. The reference Court has also concluded that
in exercise of jurisdiction under order XLVII Rule 1 of
CPC it cannot sit on the judgment over its own orders.
The learned counsel for the petitioner does not
dispute that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the
determination of the compensation under Section 64 of
the Act of 2013, can avail the remedy under Section 74
thereof. Therefore, and for the reason that the
impugned order of the reference Court is unexceptional
in law, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to avail remedy under Section 74 of the Act of
2013 and also to seek exclusion of the time that is spent
in prosecuting the present petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RB
