Karnataka High Court
Panduranga Naidu S/O Late ... vs The Executive Engineer on 12 January, 2023
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
WP No. 101819 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 101819/2021 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT.MANIKYAMMA W/O GOVINDARAJU
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.
1. PANDURANGA NAIDU,
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJULU,
AGE : 72 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O MANJUNATH BUILDING,
SALLAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR VENU-GOPAL SWAMY TEMPLE,
DAVASANDRA, BENGALURU-560036.
2. RAJGOPAL NAIDU,
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJULU,
AGE : 71 YEARS, OCC.: RETD KEB EMPLOYEE,
MANTAPA, AMARAVATHI, HOSAPETE-583201.
3. KUMARASWAMY NAIDU,
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJULU,
AGE : 70 YEARS, OCC.: RETD. GOVT. EMPLOYEE,
R/O 203, SECOND FLOOR,
PROVIDENT SUN WORTH, 6B, 1ST PHASE,
NEAR RAJESHWARI MEDICAL COLLEGE
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
AND HOSPITAL, BENGALURU-560060.
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.01.14
11:20:49 +0530
4. DORESWAMY NAIDU,
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJULU,
AGE : 68 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE,
R/O SRIPURAM JUNCTIN, GOREBAL,
RAICHUR, SINDHANUR-584128.
5. VENKATESH NAIDU,
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJULU,
AGE : 65 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
R/O FLAT NO.203, SECOND FLOOR,
BHAVANI LOTOS, SAI NAGAR,
ANANTHPUR ROAD, BALLARI-583101.
-2-
WP No. 101819 of 2021
6. SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O RAMESH NAIDU,
D/O LATE GOVINDARAJULU, AGE 76 YEARS,
R/O GORERBAI IN SINDHANUR TALUK,
DIST RAICHUR.
7. SMT.UMDADEVI W/O RAMANJANEYYA,
S/O LATE GOVINDARAJULU,
AGE : 60 YEARS, OCC.: HOME MAKER,
R/O SHRISHAILA BADAVANE,
BANK COLONY,
CHITRADURGA-577501.
- PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
SINGTALURU LIFT IRRIGATION,
PROJECT DVN-1,
HUVINAHAGADAGALI-583219,
DIST BALLARI.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
CUM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SINGATALURE LIFT IRRIGATION,
HUVINAHADAGALI-583219,
DIST BALLARI.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CONSENT AWARD BEARING
NO.LAQ. SR-2A/05-06 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, I.E., CONSENT AWARD DATED
20.08.2008 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 101819 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition by the claimant in LAC No. 14/2018 is
directed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned Sr. Civil Judge, H.B. Halli, Itinerary sitting at Senior Civil
Judge, Huvinahadagali, whereby the reference made by the
respondent No.2-L.A.O. under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land
Acquisition Act, was rejected by the Reference Court.
2. The material on record discloses that pursuant to the
petitioner's land being acquired by the respondents for Singataluru
Lift Irrigation Project, the petitioner received compensation from the
respondent and sought enhancement by seeking reference under
Section 18(3)(b) of the Act. The said proceedings having been
contested by the respondent, the Reference Court formulated two
points for consideration, which are as under:
1. Whether reference is barred by law of limitation?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of
compensation? If so, how much?
3. After answering point no.1 in favour of the petitioner-
claimant, thereby holding that the reference was within limitation,
Reference Court proceeded to consider point no.2 with reference to
compensation. While doing so, the Reference Court came to the
WP No. 101819 of 2021
conclusion that the compensation was paid by the respondents to
the petitioner pursuant to a consent award dated 10.09.2008 under
Section 11(2) of the Act and consequently having accepted
compensation under a consent award, the claim for enhancement
under Section 18 was not maintainable. However, a perusal of the
records of the Reference Court and the material on record before
this Court will indicate that the alleged consent award dated
10.09.2008 referred to by the Reference Court in the impugned
order was neither available before the Reference Court nor was the
same admitted in evidence or produced by any of the parties so as
to enable the Reference Court to come to the conclusion that the
petitioner had received compensation pursuant to a consent award.
4. Under these circumstances, in view of the fact that the
Reference Court has not correctly or properly considered and
appreciated the material on record including the rival contentions,
pleadings and evidence of the parties, I deem it just and
appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and award and
remand the matter back to the Reference Court for reconsideration
afresh in accordance with law.
WP No. 101819 of 2021
5. In the result, I pass the following order.
ORDER
i) Writ Petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned
Sr. Civil Judge, H.B. Halli, Itinerary sitting at Senior Civil Judge,
Huvinahadagali in LAC No. 14/2018 dated 10.01.2020 is set aside;
iii) Matter is remitted back to the Court of Sr. Civil Judge, H.B.
Halli, Itinerary sitting at Senior Civil Judge, Huvinahadagali for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order;
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to adduce
additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their case.
SD
JUDGE
BVV
