Karnataka High Court
Sri. M. Ramakrishna vs Smt. M. Jayalakshmi on 13 December, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45341
WP No. 15465 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.15465 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI M. RAMAKRISHNA,
S/O LATE C. MUNISWAMY MUDALIAR,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4/1, 4TH CROSS,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI L.S. VENKATAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. M. JAYALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
W/O SIVASHANKARAN,
R/AT NO.36/1, 3RD CROSS,
NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
2. V. SUDHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE MEENAKUMARI AND VELU,
Digitally signed by
GURURAJ D 3. V. SUDHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka D/O LATE MEENAKUMARI AND VELU,
NO.2 & 3 ARE R/AT NO.528,
1ST A CROSS, 8TH BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
4. SMT. PUSHPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O RAJENDRAN,
R/AT NO.1504, MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 021.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45341
WP No. 15465 of 2023
5. SMT. KALAVATHI @ PRABHAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O VELU MURUGAN,
R/AT NO.19, 10TH MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS, MATHIKERE LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
6. SRI M. SUBRAMANYAM,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY MUDALIAR,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4/1, 4TH CROSS,
MARUTHI EXTENSION,
SRIRAMPURAM POST,
BENGALURU - 560 021.
7. THE SPECIAL L.A.O.
KIADB, 3RD FLOOR,
KHENY BUILDINGS,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
8. M/S. METRO RAIL CORPORATION,
REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
9. C.E.O AND E.M.,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA BOARD,
5TH FLOOR, KSIDC BUILDING,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.4.2023 PASSED IN
L.A.C. CASE NO.151/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE - CCH-17 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND B TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:45341
WP No. 15465 of 2023
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ/s, order/s,
direction/s quashing the impugned judgment and
award dated 20.04.2023 passed in LAC case
no.151/2009 on the file of the II Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge at Bangalore-CCH-17 vide
Annexures-A and B to the writ petition and etc.
2. Sri N. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
Sri L.S. Venkatakrishna, advocate for petitioner submitted that
property bearing no.1502/38 to extent of 42.826 square
meters was acquired for benefit of respondent no.8 under
Preliminary Notification dated 17.01.2006 and Final Notification
dated 24.10.2007. It was submitted that award was passed on
05.11.2008, wherein respondent no.7-SLAO determined
compensation of Rs.31,91,492/- and thereafter, possession was
taken on 04.12.2008. It was submitted that aggrieved by
meagre amount of compensation, father of petitioner and
respondents no.1, 5 and 6 filed reference application before
respondent no.7. Same was referred and numbered as LAC
no.151/2009 on file of II Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore (CCH-17).
3. It was submitted that during pendency of reference,
petitioner's father C.Muniswamy Mudaliar died on 14.01.2011
NC: 2023:KHC:45341
and application was filed by respondent no.6 under Order XXII
Rule 3 of CPC seeking for impleading legal representatives i.e.
petitioner and respondents no.1 to 5. Said application came to
be allowed on 28.10.2019.
4. It was submitted that application was allowed
without issuing notice to proposed legal representatives and as
such, petitioner was unaware of proceedings. It was further
submitted that C.Muniswamy Mudaliar - petitioner's father had
executed a registered Will on 03.06.2009, wherein 50% share
was bequeathed in favour of respondent no.6 and remaining
50% in favour of petitioner. Suppressing same, reference was
proceeded with resulting in impugned award whereunder
claimants no.1(a), (b), (e) and (f) i.e. petitioner and
respondents no.1, 4 and 5 are held entitled for 1/6th share each
and claimants no.1(c) and (d) i.e. respondents no.2 and 3 are
together entitled for 1/6th share in 50% of enhanced
compensation, while entire remaining 50% compensation was
apportioned in favour of respondent no.6. It was further
submitted that said apportionment would be contrary to
bequeathal under Will and therefore impugned award requires
to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel
NC: 2023:KHC:45341
for petitioner sought to rely upon order passed by this Court in
W.P.no.21243/2022.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition
record.
6. From above, it is seen that petitioner's challenge is
against impugned award passed under Section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'LA Act'). Against said award LA
Act provides efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 54.
Besides same, petitioner is staking claim of Will which is as per
Application/Affidavit at Annexure-F is disputed.
7. Such being case, without petitioner having proved
Will in accordance with law and without exhausting efficacious
alternative remedy available would not be entitled to maintain
present writ petition. Insofar as order passed by this Court in
W.P.no.21243/2022 on 22.11.2022 sought to be relied upon by
learned counsel for petitioner, it is seen that in respect of very
same reference, this Court had set-aside judgment and award
dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Reference Court and remitted
matter back for re-consideration at behest of respondent no.8
herein beneficiary, who had until then not arrayed as party to
NC: 2023:KHC:45341
reference. Same is by relying upon ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of M/s. Neyvely Lignite Corporation
Limited v/s Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Neyvely
and Others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1004, which accrues to
beneficiary if not arrayed as party to reference. Said ratio will
not be available to petitioner in above facts and circumstances.
Hence, reserving liberty to avail alternative remedy, writ
petition stands dismissed.
All contentions kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GRD
