Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs The State Through And Ors on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Anant Ramanath Hegde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
W.P.No.223567/2020 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KNNL, AMARJA PROJECT,
DIVISION NO.1, KALABURAGI-585 102.
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. THE STATE THROUGH,
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
M & MP.
KALABURAGI-585 102.
02. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
03. VAIJANATH S/O ANNAPPA
AGE: 41 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
04. VISHWANATH S/O ANNAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF GULHALLI VILLAGE
TQ: ALAND - 585 302.
DIST: KALABURAGI. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP, FOR R1 & R2
SRI. H. M. PATEL GULHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 18.02.2017 PASSED BY THE IST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE KALABURAGI, IN LACA.NO.155/2016
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
02. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging
the judgment and award dated 18.02.2017 in L.A.C.A
No.155/2016 on the file of I Additional District Judge, at
Kalaburagi.
03. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land
belonging to the respondents No.3 and 4 was acquired for
the benefit of the petitioner, which had undertaken the
irrigation project. Aggrieved by the award passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer, respondents No.3 and 4 had filed
petition before the reference Court seeking enhancement
of compensation. The compensation was enhanced.
Thereafter, the appeal was filed by the land looser in
LACA.No.155/2016. In the said appeal the beneficiary is
not made as a party. Without hearing the beneficiary, the
appeal was allowed and the compensation was enhanced.
04. The beneficiary is before this Court contending
that the beneficiary is a necessary party and the appeal
filed by the land looser without making beneficiary as a
party is not tenable.
05. The learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the petitioner has to file an appeal against the
order passed by the appellate Court in LACA.No.155/2016
and the present petition is not maintainable.
06. This Court has considered the rival contentions
raised at the Bar. Though, the order passed by the First
Appellate Court in LACA.No.155/2016 is amenable to the
appellate jurisdiction of this Court, considering the fact
that the present petitioner was not made as a party before
the First Appellate Court, this Court is of the view that the
writ petition has to be entertained, as the principles of
natural justice have been violated.
07. The order impugned by the petitioner is an
order passed by the First Appellate Court. Setting aside the
order of the reference court, the First Appellate Court has
enhanced the compensation payable. Since the present
petitioner is the beneficiary the enhanced compensation is
to be paid by the beneficiary. However, the beneficiary is
not made a party though it is a necessary party in a
proceeding seeking enhancement of compensation.
08. Under these circumstances, the impugned
order is untenable and set-aside.
09. The matter is remitted to the First Appellate
Court, to consider the appeal afresh and the present
petitioner shall made as respondent No.3 in the said
appeal.
10. The parties shall appear before the First
Appellate Court on 15.02.2023 without awaiting notice
from the First Appellate Court. The first appellate court
shall implead the present petitioner as respondent No.3 in
the said appeal and decide the appeal in accordance with
law preferably within a period of six months from the date
this order.
11. All contentions of both the parties are kept
open.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
