Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Power Corporation Limited vs Gajanan S/O Venkatraman Gaonkar on 2 August, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.100298 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.100295 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100296 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100299 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100300 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100302 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100303 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100304 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100305 OF 2022 (LA-RES),
WRIT APPEAL NO.100306 OF 2022 (LA-RES)
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100298 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY. MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
Digitally signed
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
by JAGADISH T
R
...APPELLANT
Location: High (BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka AND:
Dharwad Bench
1. GAJANAN S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-583130.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.144643 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.144643 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100295 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GAJANAN S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
2. ANANT S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HEGGAR, OST. HEGGAR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
3. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HEGGAR, POST. HEGGAR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.145063 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
W.P. NO.145063 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100296 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HEGGAR, POST. HEGGAR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.145066 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.145066 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100299 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GAJANAN S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
2. ANANT S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HEGGAR, POST. HEGGAR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
3. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HEGGAR, POST. HEGGAR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.145063 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.145063 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100300 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GAJANANA S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.145065 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.145065 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100302 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GAJANAN S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
2. ANANT S/O. VENKATRAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HEGGAR, POST. HEGGAR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
3. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. HEGGAR, POST. HEGGAR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581337.
4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R4)
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.145061 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.145061 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100303 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DATTATREYA GANAPATI BHAT,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. H.NO.227A, FUSTSABAT AQUAMBIXIO,
POST. NAVELIM, POST NO.403707, SOUTH GOA.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 16.03.2022 IN W.P
NO.144164 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.144164 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100304 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
AND:
1. ANANT S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.144641 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.144641 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100305 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMAKRISHNA S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.145062 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.145062 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.100306 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,
R/BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KAVERI BHAVAN,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560042.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANANT S/O. VENKATARAMAN GAONKAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SHEVKAR, POST. GULLAPUR,
ANKOLA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER/
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KARWAR, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 25.08.2021 IN W.P
NO.144642 OF 2020 (LA-RES), AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN
W.P. NO.144642 OF 2020, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2022
C/W WA No. 100295 of 2022
WA No. 100296 of 2022
AND 7 OTHERS
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
1. These Intra Court Appeals seek to call in
question the same learned Single Judge's orders, whereby
the writ petitions of the land losers having been favored,
the order made by the SLAO under Section 28-A(2) of the
erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been voided and
the matters have been remitted to him for consideration
afresh on merits, for passing appropriate orders for the
purpose of re-determination of compensation.
2. Learned panel counsel appearing for the
appellant who happens to be the beneficiaries of the
acquisition of the lands in question, vehemently argues that
the learned Single Judge was not right in entertaining the
challenge to the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 28-A(2) of the 1894 Act inasmuch as sub-
section (3) provides for reference in terms of section 18(1).
He also highlights certain limitations that would apply to the
case of such references which could not have been ignored
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
AND 7 OTHERS
by the learned Single Judge, whilst exercising writ
jurisdiction. In support of his submission, he relies upon two
decisions: (i) the Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs.
Sri Muniyappa1 and (ii) Land Acquisition Officer Vs.
Balappa2.
3. Learned counsel representing the land losers who
happened to be the writ petitioners per contra resists the
appeals contending that the orders made by the SLAO
under Section 28-A(2) of the 1894 Act do not amount to an
award inasmuch as nothing was decided on merits and
therefore invoking sub-section (3) is not possible, and
therefore the writ petitions have been rightly entertained.
He adds that the doctrine of alternative remedy is not a
China Wall that blocks the citizen gaining entry to the portal
of Writ Court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the
appeals. He too banks upon a decision of the Apex Court
Union of India Vs. Hansoli Devi3.
ILR 2008 KAR 419, para-7
ILR 1991 KAR 4277
(2002) 7 SCC 273
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
AND 7 OTHERS
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Section 28-A came to be introduced to the erstwhile
1894 Act with a view to grant benefit of enhancement of
compensation under Section 18 obtained by other land
loosers whose lands too where in the very same acquisition
notification. The Apex Court in Scheduled Caste
Cooperative Land Owning Society Ltd., Vs. Union of
India4 has observed as under:
"4. We may first deal with the contention
based on the newly added Section 28A inserted
by Amending Act 68 of 1984 with respective
operation from April 13, 1982. Under this provision
where compensation awarded by the Collector
under Section 11 is enhanced by the Court in
reference under Section 18, the persons interested in
the acquired land who were not parties to the
reference may, by a written application to the
Collector made within three months from the date of
the award of the court, request the Collector to re
determine the amount of compensation payable to
them on the basis of the amount awarded by the
Court. On receipt of such an application the Collector
is expected to conduct an inquiry and make an award
predetermining the amount of compensation payable
(1991) 1 SCC 174
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
AND 7 OTHERS
to the applicants. Any person who does not accept
the award so made may, by written application to
the Collector, require that the matter be referred for
the determination of the court whereupon the
provisions of Sections 18 and 28 shall, so far as may
be, apply to such reference as they apply to a
reference under Section 18. It is obvious on a plain
reading of Sub-section (i) of Section 28A that it
applies only to those claimants who had failed to
seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The
redetermination has to be done by the Collector on
the basis of the compensation awarded by the Court
in the reference under Section 18 of the Act and an
application in that behalf has to be made to the
Collector within 30 days from the date of the
award..."
In the instant cases, other land loosers had secured Section
18(1) orders whereby the compensation awarded by the
SLAO was enhanced by the Reference Court. Acting on the
same, the respondent - writ petitioners had applied to the
SLAO under sub-section (1) of Section 28-A and the claim
came to be rejected under sub-section (2) only on technical
grounds, but not on merits. These orders were put in
challenge in the subject writ petitions and the same having
been quashed, the learned Single Judge had remitted the
matters for consideration afresh. That being the position
the impugned judgments have brought about a just result
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
AND 7 OTHERS
and no prejudice would be caused to the appellant
inasmuch as it also will be heard when remand is taken up
for consideration by the SLAO. After all the arguable
alternate remedy availing to the writ petitioners under
sub-section (3) of Section 28-A is not a stumbling block in
matters like this, vide Whirlpool Corporation Vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai5.
(b) The doctrine of alternate remedy is only a judicial
invention. When SLAO's orders where structured on the
ground of delay alone, their unsustainability was militantly
on the face in view of Apex Court decision in Hansoli Devi
supra, wherein it is held that summary rejection of order
under Section 18(1) on the ground of delay, does not bar
the applicants from invoking the provisions of Section 28-A
for the redetermination of compensation on the ground that
persons whose lands figured in the very same acquisition
notification have got enhanced compensation. This aspect
of the matter having been wrongly construed by the SLAO,
AIR 1999 SC 22
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
AND 7 OTHERS
the learned Single Judge to save the time has rightly set
them aside and remitted the matter for consideration afresh
on merits. It is not that he himself undertook
redetermination of the compensation. Therefore, the legal
position as to maintainability of a claim under sub-
section (3) of Section 28-A once a order is made under sub-
section (2) thereof does not come in the way of writ
jurisdiction being exercised in appropriate case. We do not
disagree that in Muniyappa case and Balappa case supra,
it is held that a land looser suffering an order at the hands
of SLAO under sub-section (2) can invoke the provisions of
sub-section (3) of Section 28-A, which internalizes
Section 18. However, it cannot be said that when the claim
under sub-section (2) is apparently decided with legal
infirmity, invariably the aggrieved should resort to sub-
section (2) of Section 28-A of the Act. In both these
decisions there is no mentioning of anything about invoking
the writ jurisdiction. After all a case is an authority for the
proposition that it lays down in a given fact matrix and not
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10941-DB
AND 7 OTHERS
for all that, which logically follows from what has been so
laid down vide Lords Halsbury in Quinn Vs. Leatham6.
In the above circumstances, these appeals, being
unworthy of merits, are liable to be and accordingly
dismissed.
We place on record our appreciation for learned
advocates appearing for both the sides in conducting the
case meticulously and with the support of apt rulings.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
VNP, CT:VP
(1901) AC 495, 506
