Karnataka High Court
Nagayya S/O Sangayya Kallimath vs Sharanayya S/O Maharudrayya Hiremath on 6 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
RSA No. 5685 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5685 OF 2013 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. NAGAYYA S/O. SANGAYYA KALLIMATH,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: KUDALASANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND
BAGALKOT-587101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MANOJ BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHARANAYYA
S/O. MAHARUDRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
Digitally R/O: KUDALASANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND
signed by
VISHAL BAGALKOT-587101.
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.12.12 2. SRI. GURUSIDDAYYA
12:29:00
+0530 S/O. MAHARUDRAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: KUDALASANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND
BAGALKOT-587101.
3. SRI. SANGAYYA
S/O. MAHARUDRAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: KUDALASANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND
BAGALKOT-587101.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
RSA No. 5685 of 2013
4. SRI. RACHYYA
S/O. MAHARUDRAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL.,
R/O: KUDALASANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND
BAGALKOT-587101.
5. SMT. AKKAMMA
W/O. RACHYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KUDALASANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND
BAGALKOT-587101.
6. SMT. CHANABASAVVA
W/O. VEERAYYA HIREMATH,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KUDALASANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND
BAGALKOT-587101.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 11/02/2016 APPEAL AGAINST R1 AND
R3 TO R6 IS DISMISSED)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.10.2012
PASSED IN R.A.NO. 16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, HUNGUND, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.12.2002 AND THE
DECREE PASSED IN O.S.NO. 358/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE, (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., HUNGUND, DISMISSING THE
SUIT FILED FOR DECLARATION AND INJUNCTION.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
RSA No. 5685 of 2013
JUDGMENT
1. The matter is listed for dismissal, since the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not make
his appearance on the last occasion when the matter was
listed for admission.
2. Learned Counsel Shri Manoj Bikkannavar
appearing for the appellant, who is present before the Court
is heard for admission, respondent No.2 is served but
unrepresented.
3. The present regular second appeal by the
plaintiff assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts
below, whereby, the suit seeking for declaration that the
plaintiff is entitled to receive compensation amount in
award of LAC No.282/1996 was dismissed and injunction in
respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.101/1 measuring 6
acres 8 guntas was granted.
4. The parties herein are referred to as per their
ranking before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing
Sy.No.101/1 measuring 1 acre 8 gunta and land bearing
Sy.No.96/1 measuring 1 acre 24 gunta are previously
ancestral properties of the defendants and the plaintiff has
purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated
02.03.1998. It is further averred that the land bearing
Sy.No.96/1 measuring 1 acre 24 gunta is acquired by the
Government under Upper Krishna Project and the plaintiff
having purchased the said land prior to acquisition in view
of the publication of 4(1) notification under the Land
Acquisition Act the plaintiff is entitled for compensation in
Sy.No.96/11 and injunction in the land bearing
Sy.No.101/1 measuring 1 acre 8 gutna.
6. Pursuant to the notice issued by the trial Court,
the defendants though served with the notice choose to
remain absent and they were placed exparte.
7. The trial Court on the basis of the pleasing,
framed the following issues:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
sought for?
(2) What decree or order?
8. In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiff
examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents
as Exs.P1 to P5.
9. The trial Court on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence held that the plaintiff has not
produced any document to show any compensation
awarded in LAC No.282/1996 or the preliminary notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been
produced and the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not
entitled to for declaration as sought for in respect of
sy.No.96/11, however, the Trial Court observing that
plaintiff has made out his case for injunction in respect of
the land bearing Sy.No.101/1 measuring 6 acre 8 gunta
granted injunction.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
10. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred appeal
before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court
while re-appreciating and reconsidering the entire oral and
documentary evidence, concurred with the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal
preferred by the plaintiff. Against the concurrent findings of
the Courts below, the present second appeal by the
plaintiff.
11. The material on record reveals that though the
pleadings are to the effect that under 4(1) notification, the
land bearing Sy.No.96/1 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas was
acquired for the Upper Krishna Project, no materials are
forthcoming that after the purchase made by the plaintiff
on 02.03.1998, the property Sy.No.96/1 was acquired by
the Government under Upper Krishna Project. In the
absence of any material to show the entitlement of the
plaintiff in respect of the said survey number, the Trial
Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly arrived at a
conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
compensation amount in the award of LAC.No.282/1996
and accordingly dismissed the suit concurred by the First
Appellate Court.
12. The manner in which, the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court have considered the entire oral and
documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered view
that the concurrent findings of fact, does not warrant
interference by this Court. There arises no substantial
questions of law to be dealt with under Section 100 CPC
and accordingly this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The regular second appeal is hereby
dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and decree of the Courts
below stands confirmed.
However, the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.96/1
can approach the appropriate authority seeking
compensation, in accordance with law.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14245
In light of the disposal of the second appeal,
pending applications, if any, would not survive for
consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNP & EM / CT: UMD
