Karnataka High Court
Hanamappa S/O Sheshappa Pujari vs Shivanand S/O Gurappa Ningapur on 8 October, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURALIDHARA PAI B
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100484 OF 2018 (SP)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100024 OF 2019
IN RFA NO.100484 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
HANAMAPPA S/O. SHESHAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's.
1(A). SMT. TULASAWWA
W/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI,
AGED 75 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(B). RAMESH S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
Digitally
signed by AGED 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
VINAYAKA B V
Location: R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
HIGH COURT
OF
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 1(C). SMT. BORAWWA
W/O. DUNDAPPA HOSAKOTI,
AGED 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TIMMAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
1(D). SMT. PANDAWWA
W/O. HAWALEPPA PUJARI,
AGED 54 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(E). SMT. PARWATEWWA
W/O. MAHADEVAPPA PRADHANI,
AGED 52 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SULAKOD,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(F). SMT. RUKMAVVA
W/O. MUTTANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GONAL,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(G). SMT. MANJULA
W/O. MELAGIREPPA PUJARI,
AGED 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAMAKERI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
1(H). BASAVARAJ S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGED 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(I) PUNDALIK S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGED 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(J). SHRISHAIL S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
1(K). SMT. RENUKA @ RADHA
W/O. MANJUNATH MALLAPUR,
AGED 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD-587113.
1(L). SMT. SHANKRAWWA
W/O. BASAVARAJ YENDIGERI,
AGED 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
...APPELLANTS
(BY DR. B.B.BALLARI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI N.CHIKKARADDER, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHIVANAND S/O. GURAPPA NINGAPUR
AGED 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
2. ANAND S/O. ANNAPPA KESANUR
AGED 53 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
BILAGI PATTAN SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,
BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUSWAMY B.HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
SMT. PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINAND A.PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BILAGI,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
IN RFA NO.100024 OF 2019:
BETWEEN:
SHIVANAND S/O. GURAPPA NINGAPUR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
HANAMAPPA S/O. SHESHAPPA PUJARI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR's.
1(A). SMT. TULASAWWA
W/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(B). RAMESH S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. NEERABUDIHAL, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(C). SMT. BORAWWA
W/O. DUNDAPPA HOSAKOTI,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. TIMMAPUR, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587313.
1(D). SMT. PANDAWWA
W/O. HAWALEPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GOVINADINNI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(E). SMT. PARWATEWWA
W/O. MAHADEVAPPA PRADHANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SULAKOD,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(F). SMT. RUKMAWWA
W/O. MUTTANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. GONAL,
TQ: BASAVANA BAGEWADI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586203.
1(G). SMT. MANJULA
W/O. MELAGIREPPA PUJARI,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KAMAKERI, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591123.
1(H). BASAVARAJ S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(I) PUNDALIK S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
1(J). SHRISHAIL S/O. HANUMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
1(K). SMT. RENUKA @ RADHA
W/O. MANJUNATH MALLAPUR,
AGED 49 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD-587113.
1(L). SMT. SHANKRAWWA
W/O. BASAVARAJ YENDIGERI,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. ROLLI R.C., TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
2. ANAND ANNAPPA KESANUR
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O: ROLLI, TQ: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587116.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
BILAGI PATTAN SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED,
BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY DR. B.B.BALLARI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAVI N.CHIKKARADDER,
ADVOCATE FOR R1(A TO L);
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. PALLAVI PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE,
SRI. RAJENDRA R.PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R3)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC 1908
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.09.2018
PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BILAGI,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
RFA No. 100484 of 2018
C/W RFA No. 100024 of 2019
HC-KAR
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURALIDHARA PAI B
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
These two Regular First Appeals in RFA
No.100484/2018 and RFA No.100024/2019 arise out of the
impugned judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 passed in
O.S.No.19/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bilagi. Therefore, these two appeals were clubbed,
heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would
be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial
court.
3. The plaintiff Shivanand s/o Gurappa Ningapur
has filed a suit in O.S.No.19/2010 seeking the relief of
specific performance of the contract dated 01.12.2004,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
which is a registered agreement of sale whereby defendant
No.1 has agreed to sell the two pieces of an immovable
properties, namely R.S.No.303 measuring 17 acres 31
guntas and R.S.No.317 measuring 16 acres 5 guntas, both
situated at Rolli village of Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District for
a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff also sought for a declaration that the sale deed
executed by defendant No.3-Bank in favour of defendant
No.2 in respect of R.S.No.303 is null and void and not
binding on the plaintiff. It is needless to mention that
initially when the suit was filed, it was filed only against
defendant No.1, and with a prayer No.1 regarding specific
performance of the contract viz., the registered agreement
of sale dated 01.12.2004. However, during the pendency of
the suit, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No.3-
Bank had auctioned the immovable property bearing
R.S.No.303 in favour of defendant No.2, and therefore,
defendant Nos.2 and 3 were subsequently impleaded in the
suit. The second prayer is regarding the auction sale made
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 and the sale
deed dated 08.10.2010.
4. The trial court framed the following issues on
23.02.2011, and additional issues were also framed on
17.02.2011 and 09.03.2012.
1. Whether plaintiff prove that defendant agreed to
sell the suit scheduled property for a consideration
of Rs. 17,00,000/- and paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as
earnest money and executed sale agreement on
1/12/2004?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant on
10/2/2005 requested the plaintiff to advance Rs.
6,00,000/- and plaintiff paid the same to the
defendant?
3. Whether plaintiff prove that he is ready and willing
to perform his part of sale agreement?
4. Who will be put to more hardship, if suit for specific
performance is decreed or not?
5. Whether defendant prove the plaintiff forcible and
concealing true facts created bogus agreement in
the year 2004, stating that it is required for
security of liability incurred by defendant by
receiving loan from Pattan Sahakari Bank, Bilagi in
the year 1998?
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
6. Whether defendant prove that Pattan Sahakari Bank
already auctioned suit property on 4/7/2007 and
therefore, suit is not maintainable?
7. Whether defendant prove suit of plaintiff is time
barred?
8. Whether defendant prove that plaintiff not valued
the suit properly and Court fee paid on plaint is not
proper and correct?
9. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
10. What order or decree?
Additional issues:
1) Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the suit is
not maintainable as against defendant No.3?
2) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit is
hit by the provisions of Section 15 and 20 of the
Specific Relief Act?
5. The trial court after analyzing the oral and
documentary evidence came to the conclusion that both the
suit schedule properties are Inam lands. It was observed
that D.W.2 (Defendant No.1) has admitted during his cross-
examination that he has filed an application before the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
concerned authority around 10-12 years ago to convert the
suit land into 'Raitwari' land, however, even after
conversion of the suit land as 'Raitwari', the plaintiff did not
take any initiative or steps to get the sale deed registered in
his favour. The trial court, therefore, held that no prudent
person will keep quiet after conversion of the land into
'Raitwari' land to get the sale deed executed in his favour.
The trial court therefore, proceeded to hold that the plaintiff
is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the
contract, however, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the
earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- from defendant No.1 at
the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of execution of the
agreement of sale till the date of realization.
6. Defendant No.1 filed RFA No.100484/2018, being
aggrieved of a portion of the judgment where defendant
No.1 was directed to refund the earnest money of
Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
On the other hand, the plaintiff has filed RFA
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
No.100024/2019 assailing the impugned judgment and
decree passed by the trial court.
7. Learned counsel Dr.B.B.Ballari appearing for
defendant No.1 submitted that the rate of interest of 12%
p.a. granted by the trial court is excessive, and therefore,
the learned counsel would pray that the same should be
reduced to 6% p.a. The learned counsel has also contended
that the suit is time barred, having regard to the admitted
facts that the agreement was entered into on 01.12.2004
and the legal notice was got issued by the plaintiff only on
29.07.2010. It is pointed out that defendant No.1 has
admitted during the course of his cross-examination that
the suit schedule properties were converted as 'Raitwari'
land about 10-12 years prior to the filing of the suit, and
therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that it is mentioned
in the agreement of sale that defendant No.1 will convert
the suit schedule property into 'Raitwari' land and thereafter
sale deed will be executed in favour of the plaintiff was
rightly found as incorrect by the trial court.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel Sri.S.B.Hebballi appearing for
the plaintiff submitted that the trial court has committed a
blunder in coming to a conclusion that both the suit
schedule properties are Inam lands. The attention of this
court is drawn to Ex.D45, which contains two documents.
The first document in Ex.D45 is the order of confirmation of
sale passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative
Societies and Recovery Officer. The second document is the
order of the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi dated
16.09.2010, which should have been marked separately. It
is pointed out that R.S.No.303 was the subject matter of
the proceedings under the provisions of the Karnataka
Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act' for short). It is pointed out that the Assistant
Commissioner has noticed the orders passed by the Land
Tribunal on 15.09.1980 in the proceedings bearing
No.KLR/D/SR/314, where defendant No.1 was conferred
with the occupancy rights while re-granting 17 acres 31
guntas in R.S.No.303. Accordingly, Form No.11 was issued
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
in favour of defendant No.2 on 20.08.1986. The Assistant
Commissioner therefore proceeded to hold that defendant
No.2 herein has fulfilled all the conditions including the fact
that he has continued to be in possession and cultivation of
the land from the date of re-grant and he has not disposed
of the property. Accordingly, an order was passed by the
Assistant Commissioner on 16.09.2010 in terms of Section
12(2) of the Act, granting permission to defendant No.2 for
alienation, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff would therefore submit that the learned Senior Civil
Judge has proceeded on a wrong premise that both the
items of the suit schedule properties are the Inam lands.
The finding of the trial court may hold good insofar as
R.S.No.303 is concerned, but the same does not hold good
insofar as R.S.No.317 is concerned, and no specific finding
is given by the trial court insofar as R.S.No.317 is
concerned, as to why it should not be considered for grant
of specific performance of the contract, as prayed for by the
plaintiff. The learned counsel has pointed out to one
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
sentence in the impugned judgment where the learned
Senior Civil Judge has held that, having regard to the
hardship that would be faced by defendant No.1, the prayer
made by the plaintiff for the specific performance in respect
of both the items of the properties is declined. The learned
counsel for the plaintiff would therefore submit that the
matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the trial
court insofar as the prayer made by the plaintiff for the
specific performance of the contract insofar as R.S.No.317
is concerned, and not in respect of R.S.No.303. The learned
counsel would also add that the trial court should be
directed to consider the contention of the plaintiff that out
of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.17,00,000/-,
Rs.16,00,000/- have already been paid to defendant No.1
and the same is now to be considered in respect of
R.S.No.317 is concerned.
9. At this juncture, learned counsel for defendant
No.1 would submit that the trial court has rightly came to
the conclusion that there is no material placed by the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
plaintiff before the court regarding payment of
Rs.6,00,000/- by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.1
under the agreement in question.
10. Learned counsel Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.
Hiremath, appearing for defendant No.2 would submit that
this court should take note of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant No.1 insofar
as R.S.No.303 is concerned, since the auction sale made by
defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2 on 14.07.2010
has been confirmed at the hands of the competent authority
and the trial court has clearly held that the said property is
not available for further consideration in favour of the
plaintiff, and even if the matter is remanded for
reconsideration, R.S.No.303 should not be the subject
matter of further proceedings in the suit.
11. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants
and the respondents in both the appeals and perused the
appeal memos along with the trial court records.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
12. This court need not go into any other aspects of
the matter having regard to the Ex.D45, an order passed by
the Assistant Commissioner on 16.09.2010 where
permission is granted in favour of defendant No.1 to
transfer the property bearing R.S.No.303 in terms of
Section 12(2) of the Act. It is clear from the material
available on record that R.S.No.317 was never the subject
matter of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal or
before the Assistant Commissioner. There is no material on
record to show that R.S.No.317 is an Inam land. The Trial
court has proceeded on a wrong footing that R.S.No.317 is
also an Inam land. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration
having regard to the prayer made in the suit for the specific
performance of the contract as per the agreement of sale
dated 01.12.2004, which contains two items of immovable
properties. Having regard to the admitted facts and the
material available on record, this court would uphold the
decision of the trial court insofar as R.S.No.303 is
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
concerned. The suit property was mortgaged by defendant
No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and on default, the said
property was brought for auction and the same has been
sold in favour of defendant No.2. In that view of the matter,
it is made clear that, on remand, the trial court shall not
take into consideration R.S.No.303, and it is now a property
belonging to defendant No.2.
13. The matter stands remanded back to the trial
court for reconsideration insofar as R.S.No.317 is
concerned.
14. During the course of the proceedings, learned
counsel for the plaintiff has pointed out to the document at
Ex.D2 that the plaintiff had stood as a guarantor for the
loan obtained by defendant No.1 at the hands of defendant
No.3 during the year 1998-2001. He has also pointed out to
Ex.D3, which is an order passed by the Assistant Registrar
of Co-operative Societies, Jamakhandi in proceedings
No.JRL/B/DDS-424/2004-05 dated 13.08.2004 that
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
defendant No.1 has cleared the loan, and therefore, all the
documents are directed to be released in favour of
defendant No.1. Attention of this court is also drawn to
Ex.D4, which are the proceedings initiated by defendant
No.3 against defendant No.1 and two other persons namely,
Sri.Parutappa Malakappa Ugran and Sri.Ningappa Shivappa
Sulikeri and not against the plaintiff. Learned counsel for
the plaintiff would therefore submit that after the loan
obtained by defendant No.1 earlier where the plaintiff had
stood as a guarantor was cleared by defendant No.1, and
defendant No.1 has once again obtained a loan but, the
plaintiff is not a party to the subsequent mortgage at the
hands of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3. On
the other hand, it is submitted that registered agreement
dated 01.12.2004 was entered into between the plaintiff
and defendant No.1 after the loan was cleared by defendant
No.1 and the competent authority had directed to release
the documents in favour of defendant No.1. It is therefore
contended that the plaintiff was not aware of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
subsequent mortgage made by defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.3.
15. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed.
However, the matter stands remanded back to the trial
court to reconsider the suit filed by the plaintiff insofar as
one item of the suit schedule property, namely R.S.No.317
measuring 16 acres 5 guntas, situated at Rolli village of
Bilagi Taluk, Bagalkot District, is concerned, for the relief of
specific performance of the contract. In that regard, all
contentions are kept open.
16. Any observation made by this court during the
course of this judgment shall not prejudice the case of
either of the parties.
17. Ordered accordingly.
18. Office is directed to return the court fee, in
accordance with law, having regard to the decision of this
court to remand the matter back to the trial court.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13642-DB
HC-KAR
19. Since a portion of the land in R.S.No.317 is said
to have been notified for acquisition at the hands of the
Upper Krishna Project, the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
UKP is permitted to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit.
The directions given by this court regarding disbursement of
the compensation shall continue till the suit is reconsidered
and disposed of by the trial court.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(MURALIDHARA PAI B)
JUDGE
MBS
Ct:vh
