Karnataka High Court
Muttappa Shankrappa Lamani vs The Additional Special Land ... on 21 February, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 100726 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 101280 OF 2023 (LA-RES)
IN WP NO.100726/2023
BETWEEN:
MUTTAPPA SHANKRAPPA LAMANI
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SITIMANI VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. BAGALKOT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER- 1,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BAGALKOT.
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
REPRESENTED BY
KARNATAKA THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT.
3. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALANIGAM
(A GOVT OF KARNATAKA UNDER TAKING)
REGD OFFICE PWD OFFICE ANNEXURE III FLOOR,
K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE RPTD BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
SMT. SOMABAI W/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
4. BABU S/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
5. SOMALAPPA S/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. TAVAREAPPA S/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SMT. LALITABAI W/O PARASHURAM LAMANI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
8. SMT. SUNITABAI W/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
9. SMT. NITUBAI W/O SHIVAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
10. SHANTABAI W/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
11. RAMASWAMI S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
12. GANGARAM S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
13. SITARAM S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
14. BHIMAPPA S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
15. BABU S/O DESHAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
16. DEVALAPPA S/O DESHAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
17. SMT. NEELABAI W/O GANGARAM LAMANI,
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
18. RENUKA D/O GANGARAM LAMANI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
19. GANESH S/O GANGARAM LAMANI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
20. SMT. TARABAI W/O HIRAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
21. HANAMANT S/O HIRAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
22. SMT. SHARUBAI W/O VITTAL LAMANI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
23. SMT. RENUKA W/O PARASHURAM LAMANI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
24. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SATISH LAMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
25. HANAMANTHA S/O HIRAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
26. RAMASWAMI S/O HEERAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
27. SHANKARAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
28. BADIYAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
29. BABU S/O GOVINDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
30. BHIMAPPA S/O DHARAMANNA LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
31. HANAMANTA S/O DHARMANNA LAMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
32. SONABAI W/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
33. LAALIBAI D/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
34. SITABAI D/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
35. SANGEETA D/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
36. SOMABAI W/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
37. RAMU S/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
38. LAXMAN S/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
39. SURESH S/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O: SITIMANI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANAMANTHARAY LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R4 TO R39 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17TH
APRIL 2021 IN LAC NO. 150/2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-H, AND ETC.,.
IN WP NO. 101280/2023
BETWEEN:
MUTTAPPA SHANKRAPPA LAMANI
AGE. 62 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SITIMANI VILLAGE,
TQ.DIST. BAGALKOT-587103
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
AND:
1. THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER- 1,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BAGALKOT.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT.
3. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALANIGAM
(A GOVT OF KARNATAKA UNDER TAKING)
REGD OFFICE PWD OFFICE ANNEXURE III FLOOR,
K.R. CIRCLE BANGALORE RPTD BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
SMT. SOMABAI W/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS
4. BABU S/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. SOMALAPPA S/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. TAVAREAPPA S/O GURAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
7. SMT. LALITABAI W/O PARASHURAM LAMANI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
8. SMT. SUNITABAI W/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
9. SMT. NATUBAI W/O SHIVAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
10. SHANTABAI W/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
11. RAMASWAMI S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
12. GANGARAM S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
AGE 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
13. SITARAM S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
14. BHIMAPPA S/O NEELAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
15. BABU S/O DESHAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
16. DEVALAPPA S/O DESHAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
17. SMT. NEELABAI W/O GANGARAM LAMANI,
AGE 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
18. RENUKA D/O GANGARAM LAMANI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
19. GANESH S/O GANGARAM LAMANI,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
20. SMT. TARABAI W/O HIRAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
21. HANAMANT S/O HIRAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
22. SMT. SHARUBAI W/O VITTAL LAMANI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
23. SMT. RENUKA W/O PARASHURAM LAMANI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
24. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O SATISH LAMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
25. HANAMANTHA S/O HIRAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
26. RAMASWAMI S/O HEERAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
27. SHANKARAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
28. BADIYAPPA S/O GOVINDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
29. BABU S/O GOVINDAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
30. BHIMAPPA S/O DHARAMANNA LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
31. HANAMANTA S/O DHARMANNA LAMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
32. SONABAI W/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
33. LAALIBAI D/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
34. SITABAI D/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
35. SANGEETA D/O CHANDU LAMANI,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
36. SOMABAI W/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
37. RAMU S/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
38. LAXMAN S/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
39. SURESH S/O HEMALAPPA LAMANI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ALL ARE R/O: SITIMANI VILLAGE,
TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.HANAMANTHARAY LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R.4 TO 39 - SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
WP No. 100726 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101280 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17TH
APRIL 2021 IN LAC NO. 149/2010 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC BAGALKOT VIDE ANNEXURE-J, AND ETC.,.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Service of notice to respondents No.4 to 39 is dispensed
with at the request and risk of the petitioners.
2. Since the challenge in these petitions is to the
common award passed by the reference Court, both these
petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of by
common order.
3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land
bearing R.S.No.77/1, measuring 11 acres 02 guntas, situated
at Sitimani village, taluk and district Bagalkote. The subject
land was proposed to be acquired by issuing a notification
dated 11.08.1998 under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act 1894, which culminated in passing of an award dated
27.09.2002, by which the petitioners were denied
compensation on the ground that the subject land is classified
as poth A kharab land. The petitioners challenged the award
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court
in W.P.No.64038/2009.
4. This Court, vide order dated 07.08.2009, disposed
of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
representation submitted by the petitioners in light of the
judgment in the case of Sadashivaiah and others vs. State
of Karnataka and others, reported in ILR 2003 Kar 5088,
and in the case of V.Narayanswamy and another vs. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in ILR 2005
Kar. 4020. Thereafter the Special Land Acquisition Officer
passed a supplementary award dated 10.02.2010 determining
the market value of the subject land at Rs.20,000/- per acre
without statutory benefits, and notice under section 12(2) of
the Act 1894 was served on the petitioner on 24.02.2010 and
the petitioner filed a petition under section 18 of the Act 1894
on 23.03.2010 i.e., within 90 days and the same was referred
to the reference Court on 04.07.2012.
5. The reference Court allowed the reference
determining the compensation at the rate of Rs.7,91,746/- per
acre with all statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer and the Secretary to the Government
of Karnataka, Revenue Department, approached this Court in
MFA No.20349/2013. The Division Bench of this Court, vide
order dated 23.09.2013, confirmed the award passed by the
reference Court. The beneficiary i.e., respondent No.3
challenged the supplementary award passed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer and the award passed by the reference
Court and also the judgment and award passed by this Court in
MFA No.20349/2013.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
6. The Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.101474/2018, vide order dated 21.11.2019, set aside
the award passed by the reference Court as well as the
judgment passed by this Court, and remanded the matter to
the reference Court for reconsideration of the reference filed by
the petitioner after impleading the beneficiary as a party to the
proceedings. Thereafter, the reference Court passed the
impugned award, dismissing the reference stating that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has no power to pass
supplementary award during the subsistence of the general
award. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
reference Court under section 18 of the Act, 1894, cannot go
into the legality of the supplementary award and the reference
Court can only determine the compensation. He further argued
that the Civil Court sitting in reference cannot enlarge the
scope of inquiry and the inquiry is restricted to an examination
of a question, which has been referred by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer for decision under section 18 of the Act, and
the statute never contemplated the reference Court to review
or reduce the collector's award. Therefore the impugned award
passed by the reference Court is one without authority of law.
In support he places reliance on the decision of
K.S.Paripoornan and others vs. State of Kerala and
others, reported in (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 684.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3
beneficiary would submit that during the subsistence of general
award, by which, the petitioners were denied compensation,
the Special Land Acquisition Officer had no authority to pass
supplementary award, and the reference Court taking into
consideration the same has rightly passed the impugned award
and the same does not warrant interference. He further admits
that in W.P.No.101474/2018 this Court had granted liberty to
respondent No.3 to raise objection with regard to legality of the
award before the reference Court. Therefore in the light of the
liberty granted, respondent No.3 had the locus to question the
legality of the supplementary award before the reference Court.
He further submits that against an award passed under section
18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, an efficacious remedy
of appeal is provided under section 54 of the Act, 1894.
Therefore the present petition is not maintainable.
9. He further submits that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of K.S.Paripoornan and others (supra) has held
that the word 'award' occurring in sub-section (1-A), of section
23, the said word is used not as a noun but as a verb is not
defined in the Act and therefore the decision of the Civil Court
on reference under section 18 is called an award by sub-section
(1) of section 26 but at the same time sub-section (2) of
section 23 says that every such award shall be deemed to be a
decree and the statement of every such award a judgment
within the meaning of section 2(2) and 2(9) respectively of
CPC. Therefore the award passed by the reference Court is not
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
an award under section (1) of section 26 or sub-section (2) of
section 23.
10. He further submits that the other claimants have
approached this Court under section 54 of the Act, 1894
challenging the very same impugned award, and the award
passed by the reference Court having been seized before the
Division Bench of this Court, the present petition is not
maintainable.
11. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the material placed before
the Court.
12. Admittedly the nil award was passed denying the
compensation to the petitioners, and other joint owners stating
that the subject lands are classified poth A kharab lands.
Thereafter supplementary award was passed determining the
compensation payable to the petitioner in the light of the
decision of this Court in the case of V.Sadashivaiah (supra)
and V.Narayan Swamy (supra) holding that the land losers
are entitled for compensation even in respect of the lands
which are classified as poth A kharab lands. The petitioners,
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a petition under section
18 of the Act. Before the reference Court respondent No.3 in
view of the liberty granted by this Court in
W.P.No.101474/2018 contended that the supplementary award
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
during the subsistence of general award passed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer was one without authority of law.
13. The reference Court by relying on the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nareshkumar and
others vs. Government of LCT Delhi, reported in (2019) 9
SCC 416 and in the case of Bankatlal vs. SLAO and
another, reported in (2014) 15 SCC 116, wherein it was
held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has no power to
review of award passed under section 11 of the Act which has
attained finality, dismissed the reference petition.
14. The point that arises for consideration is, whether
the reference Court could have gone into the question of
authority of the Special Land Acquisition Officer to pass
supplementary award.
15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
V.Narayan Swamy (supra), at paragraphs No.11 and 12 has
held as follows:
"11. A plain reading of the aforesaid
provision reveals that the Civil Court sitting in
reference cannot enlarge the scope of enquiry at
the instance of the parties who have not obtained
and cannot obtain any order of reference so as to
include a review of items not objected to by the
claimants; the enquiry before the Reference Court
is restricted to an examination of a question which
has been referred by the Collector or the Special
Land Acquisition Officer for a decision under Section
18 of the said Act; the powers and duties of the
Civil Court sitting in reference are defined by the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
Statute and therefore, it cannot be legitimately
invited to exercise the inherent powers and assume
jurisdiction over the matters not intended by the
Legislature. The Statute never contemplated the
Reference Court to review or reduce the Collector's
award. Therefore, if any new ground is enquired by
the Reference Court, such enquiry will be without
jurisdiction.
12. The Reference Court will have no
jurisdiction to travel beyond the Collector's award. It
is well settled that enquiry under Section 21 is not a
continuation of the enquiry at the instance of the
Collector."
16. What is apparent from the ratio enunciated by the
Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case is that the
scope of enquiry under section 18 is restricted to examination
of a question, which has been referred by the collector or the
Special Land Acquisition Officer for decision under section 18 of
the Act, and the reference Court has no power to review or
reduce the collector's award. Therefore, if any new ground is
enquired by the reference Court, such enquiry shall be without
jurisdiction.
17. It was further held that the reference Court has no
jurisdiction to travel beyond the collector's award and enquiry
under section 21 is not a continuation of the enquiry at the
instance of the collector.
18. In the instant case, the reference Court was only
required to go into the question whether the quantum of
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
was just and proper, and could not have traveled beyond the
scope of enquiry, and hold that the supplementary award
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is one without
jurisdiction. Therefore the impugned award passed by the
reference Court is one without jurisdiction.
19. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court of CRP
No.100077/2015 and connected petitions has held that with
reference to the invoking the remedy of appeal under section
54 of the Act, 1894, shall be maintainable only if the award
passed by the reference Court is under Part III of the Act,
which shall be in writing and signed by the Judge and which
shall prescribe the amount awarded under various clauses
namely clauses of section 23(1) together with grounds of
awarding each of the said grounds. Therefore it is this award so
passed shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of
the grounds of every such award a judgment within the
meaning of section 2(2) and section 2(9) respectively of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the dismissal of the
reference as barred by time cannot be regarded as an award
passed by the reference Court.
20. In the instant case, the reference petition was
dismissed on the ground that the reference could not have
been made under section 18 on the basis of supplementary
award which was passed without authority of law. Therefore, in
the absence of any decree passed by the reference Court, the
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the
present petition is not maintainable is not acceptable.
21. Some of the joint owners have approached this
Court by filing an appeal under section 54 of the Act, 1894
challenging the very same award impugned herein. Merely
some of the joint owners have preferred an appeal, that cannot
take away the right of the petitioner to invoke the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India when the award passed by the reference Court does not
come under the ambit of decree as defined under section 2(2)
and 2(9) of the CPC.
22. Liberty was granted by the Division Bench of this
court to the beneficiary to question the legality of the
supplementary award before the Reference, but the liberty
granted will not confer power on the reference court to
adjudicate the legality , when the scope of enquiry under
Section 18 of Act, 1984 is confined only to determine whether
compensation awarded is just and proper.
23. Accordingly, writ petitions are allowed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2021 in LAC
Nos.149 and 150 of 2010 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Bagalkote, is hereby quashed.
24. The matters are remanded to the II Addl. Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bagalkote to reconsider the
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4306
reference in LAC No.149 and 150 of 2010 in accordance with
law after notifying all the parties.
25. The reference Court to confine the scope of enquiry
only to the extent of redetermination of the market value fixed
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and the proceedings to
be completed at the earliest.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRK/ CT:ANB
