Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Commissioner vs Shri. Shivarudra S/O Channabasu ... on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14339
MSA No. 100064 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.100064 OF 2017 (LA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI SUB DIVISION, BELAGAVI
PINCODE-590001.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA STATE HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI
PINCODE-590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
AND:
1. SHRI. SHIVARUDRA,
S/O. CHANNABASU HANNIKERI,
Digitally AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
signed by
VISHAL R/O. BASAVAN KUDACHI,
VISHAL NINGAPPA
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI.
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date: PINCODE-591124.
2023.12.11
11:48:08
+0530
SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O. CHANNABASU HANNIKER,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES)
2. SMT. KASTURI,
W/O. CHANABASU HANNIKERI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BASAVAN KUDACHI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI
PINCODE-591124.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14339
MSA No. 100064 of 2017
3. SMT. SUJATA,
W/O. RAVI HANJI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BASAVAN KUDACHI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI
PINCODE-591124.
4. SAVITA W/O. UMESH RACHANNAVAR
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. BASAVAN KUDACHI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI
PINCODE-591124.
5. KUMARI SHRIDEVI,
D/O. CHANDRASEHKHAR HANNIKERI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. BASAVAN KUDACHI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI
PINCODE-591124.
6. SHRI. BASAVARAJ @ BASAVANT,
S/O. CHANNABASU HANNIKERI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. BASAVAN KUDACHI VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DIST. BELAGAVI
PINCODE-591124.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.V. SAMBARAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO, a)
CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO. 31/2007 ON THE FILE OF II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ALSO THE
RECORDS IN LAC APPEAL NO. 320/2013 ON THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN LAC APPEAL NO.
320/2013. b) SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED
26.06.2011 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BELAGAVI IN LAC NO. 31/2007 AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED 20.06.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN LAC APPEAL NO.
320/2013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14339
MSA No. 100064 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The present second appeal by the State assailing the
Judgment and decree in LAC No.320/2013 confirming the
Judgment and decree passed in LAC No.31/2007 arising out of
common Judgment in LAC Nos.28, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of
2007 disposed on 26.07.2011. The cross appeals preferred by
two claimants who have approached this Court in MSA
Nos.100095/2014 and 100096/2014 was allowed by enhancing
the compensation from ₹48,000/- to ₹96,000/- per gunta. It is
stated by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the
said amount has been fully satisfied by the appellant-State and
the appellant-State does not intend to prosecute the present
appeal and files a memo to that effect which reads as under:
"MEMO FOR DISPOSAL
Herein the counsel for the above
Appellant/State begs to submit as under:
The above appeal is filed challenging the
judgment and decree in LAC Appeal No.320/2013
by confirming the judgment and decree passed in
LAC NO.31/2007 arising out a common Judgment
in LAC Nos. 28, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35/2007
disposed on 26.07.2011 wherein the cross appeals
filed by the Respondent/claimants were allowed
and aggrieved by the same two of the claimants
have approached this Hon'ble Court in MSA No.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14339
100095/2014 and 100096/2014 which came to be
disposed of by this Hon'ble Court by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.48,000/- to 96,000/- per
acre and said amounts have been fully satisfied by
Appellants/State. In view of the above said fact
the Hon'ble Court shall disposed of the appeal
having fully satisfied the amount to the
Respondents in the interest of justice and equity."
The submission and a memo is taken on record.
In view of the same, the appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PJ, CT: UMD
