Karnataka High Court
Executive Engineer vs The Assistant Commissioner on 29 October, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.101764/2015
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
MFA. CROB.No.100029/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101764 OF 2015
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101809 OF 2015,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB. NO.100156 OF 2022,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB. NO.100029 OF 2023.
IN MFA NO. 101764/2015
BETWEEN:
MAHARUDRAYYA MALLAYYA MATHAPATI
DEAD BY HIS LRS
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
1. SMT. SHANTA W/O. MAHARUDRAYYA MATHAPATI
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.10.31
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
10:51:30 +0530
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SMT. KALAVATI W/O. IRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. SUDHA W/O. SHARANAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
4. SMT. PARVATI W/O. BASAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
-2-
MFA No.101764/2015
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
MFA. CROB.No.100029/2023
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. RAJASHEKHAR HIREMATH
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.H. BHAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAILHONGAL,
SUB-DIVISION BAILHONGAL.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER
SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD,
DHARWAD.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNUICIPAL CORPORATION
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. DAYANAD M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN
L.A.C.NO.128/2011 DATED 23.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI, ENHANCING THE MARKET
VALUE AT RS.140/-PER SQUARE FEET ALONG WITH STATUTORY
BENEFITS AND WITH COST BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-3-
MFA No.101764/2015
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
MFA. CROB.No.100029/2023
IN MFA NO.101809/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. BHEEMAPPA
KARADAGI,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GURLHOSUR, TQ: SAUDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.H. BHAGI, ADVOCATE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TEH ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION,
BAILHONGAL.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND
DRAINAGE BOARD, DHARWARD.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. DAYANAD M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. SHARMILA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN
L.A.C.NO.129/2011 DATED 23.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI, ENHANCING THE MARKET
VALUE AT RS.140/-PER SQUARE FEET ALONG WITH STATUTORY
-4-
MFA No.101764/2015
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
MFA. CROB.No.100029/2023
BENEFITS AND WITH COST BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA. CROB. NO.100156/2022
BETWEEN:
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
DRAINAGE BOARD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DHAWAD
SIR VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAILHONGAL,
SUB-DIVISION BAILHONGAL.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
HUBLI - DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580020.
3. SMT. SHANTA W/O. MAHARUDRAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
4. SMT. KALAVATHI W/O. IRAYYA HIREMATH
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOSEHOLD,
5. SMT. SUDHA W/O. SHARANAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
6. SMT. PARVATI W/O. BASAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
-5-
MFA No.101764/2015
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
MFA. CROB.No.100029/2023
7. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. RAJASHEKHAR HIREMATH
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
8. VEERABHADRAYYA S/O. MAHARUDRAYYA MATHAPATI
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRI/PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 8 ARE
R/O: TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591218.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.H. BHAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R8;
SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA. CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
AWARD/ORDER DATED 23.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI, IN L.A.C.NO.128/2011 AND
TO HOLD THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN ONLY (I.E.
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 IN LAC NO.128/2011) ARE JOINTLY
AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE LAND
LOSERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA. CROB. NO.100029/2023
BETWEEN:
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY
DRAINAGE BOARD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DHARWAD
SIR. VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE)
-6-
MFA No.101764/2015
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
MFA. CROB.No.100029/2023
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BAILHONGAL,
SUB-DIVISION, BAILHONGAL-591101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
HUBLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-580020.
3. BASAVARAJ S/O. BHEEMAPPA KARADAGI
AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GURLHOSUR, TQ. SAUDATTI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.H. BHAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. BHUSHAN B. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA. CROB. IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
AWARD/ORDER DATED 23.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE SAUNDATTI, IN L.A.C.NO.129/2011 AND
TO HOLD THAT RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN ONLY (I.E.
RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 3 IN LAC NO.129/2011) ARE JOINTLY
AND SEVERALLY LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION TO THE LAND
LOSERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.10.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-7-
MFA No.101764/2015
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
MFA. CROB.No.100029/2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
MFA No.101764/2015 is filed under Section 54(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') by the
legal representatives of claimant-appellants challenging the
Judgment and Award passed in LAC 128/2011 dated
23.02.2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Saundatti, praying for modification of the same and
enhancing the market value at Rs.140/- per square foot
along with statutory benefits and costs.
2. Cross objection No.100156/2022 is filed under
Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC by the Executive Engineer of
KUWSDB to modify the said award and to hold that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the respondent Nos.1 and
respondent No.3 in original LAC No.128/2011 are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the land-losers
and for such other reliefs.
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
3. MFA No.101809/2015 is filed under Section 54(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the claimant-
Basavaraj, challenging the Judgment and Award in LAC No.
129/2011 dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Saundatti and to modify the market value at
Rs.140/- per square foot along with statutory benefits and
with costs by allowing the appeal.
4. Cross-objection No.100029/2023 is filed under
Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC by the Executive Engineer of
KUWSDB to modify the said award dated 23.02.2015 and to
hold that respondent No.1 and 2 who are original
respondent Nos.1 and 3 in LAC No.129/2011 are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to land losers.
5. The Learned Senior Civil Judge has passed
common judgment in LAC No.129/2011 c/w LAC
No.128/2011 and LAC No.132/2011 on 23.02.2015 holding
that all the three claim petitions were allowed in part with
costs and claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
on the market value at the rate of Rs.5,60,000/- per acre
along with all statutory benefits available under the
provisions of the Act and held that respondent Nos.1 to 3
are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award amount.
6. The petitioner in Cross-objection is respondent
No.2 in original LAC case contended that second respondent
Board is not responsible for making payment because it is
the statutory Corporation and expert body under
Government of Karnataka to build infrastructure for drinking
water supply and drainage facility wherever either the local
bodies or the Government wishes to provide drinking water
facility or drainage facility. The Board after building
infrastructure hand over the project to the respective local
bodies or the Government and its function is akin to the
contractor who builds the building and hand over the same
to the owner. Hence, prayed for modification of the award
by absolving him from the liability.
- 10 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
7. In this regard, IA under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is
filed by advocate for respondent No.2.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsels
appearing for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for appellants in MFA
Nos.101764/2015 and MFA No.101809/2015 Sri.Pranav
Umesh Badagi for Sri.K.H.Bhagi submitted that this is the
appeal challenging the award granting enhanced
compensation at Rs.5,60,000/- per acre by learned trial
judge, which is meager. He contended that the learned trial
judge has already recorded a clear finding that the acquired
lands are having NA potentiality and thus it ought to have
awarded the compensation at square foot basis but awarded
the compensation on acre basis and not considered the
Ex.P.6 and P.4 and thus the Reference Court committed an
error in not accepting the valuation shown in Ex.P.4 to P.6
and thus prayed for allowing the appeal.
- 11 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri.
Dayanand M. Bandi on the other hand supported the
judgment of the Reference Court and submitted that the
award passed by the Reference Court is in accordance with
law by examining all the material particulars and properly
relied upon the documents produced in the case and
appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. Hence,
prays for rejection of appeal.
11. Learned counsel for cross-objector has submitted
his arguments that the cross objector is not liable to make
payment. It is the contention of the cross objector that its
duty is only to build infrastructure and then hand over
project to the respective local bodies or to the Government
and in this case originally respondent No.3 is the beneficiary
and handed over the project to them and hence, its duty is
only like the duty of contractor and it is not liable to pay the
compensation. In this regard, this cross objector has taken
this specific defence even before learned trial Judge.
Learned trial judge has discussed this point in its judgment
- 12 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
at paragraph Nos.10 to 13 and held that present cross
objector along with other two respondents are being
Government bodies and all of them are jointly and severally
liable to make payment.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers along with trial Court
records, the points that arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether the claimants-appellants proves that the
award passed by the reference Court by
determining the compensation at Rs.5,60,000/- per
acre was meager and whether it requires
interference ?
2) Whether the respondent No.2-cross objector be
permitted to adduce additional evidence?
3) Whether respondent No.2-cross objector is not
liable to make payment of the award amount?
4) What order?
- 13 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
13. POINT No.2:- This point is considered first, as it
is pertaining to production of additional documents.
14. The cross-objector has produced four documents
along with IA under Order XLI Rule 27 Code of Civil
Procedure. i.e., 1) Estimate for Bulk Water Supply
improvement to Hubli-Dharwad Twin city with Malaprabha
Reservoir as source 2) Karnataka Government Resolution
order 3) Order of Karnataka Government and 4) Form-A.
15. The other parties to the appeal have not filed
objection to this IA No.3.
16. For the reasons stated in affidavit annexed to
this IA No.III, as he intends to produce only public
documents, we are of the opinion that cross-objector be
permitted to produced them. Accordingly, Point No.2 is
answered in the affirmative.
Point No.1 :-
17. The acquired lands in LAC No.128/2011 are at
Survey No.591/2 measuring 21 guntas and in LAC
- 14 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
No.129/2011 are at Survey No.69/4 measuring 14 guntas,
situated at Kenchalarakoppa village, Saundatti taluka. The
4(1) Notification was issued on 10.06.2004 for acquisition
and award was passed on 17.09.2009 fixing the market
value of the land acquired at Rs.50,000/- per acre. Then,
under Section 18 reference, the learned Senior Civil Judge
enhanced the compensation and determined the market
value at Rs.5,60,000/- per acre by relying upon the sale
deed dated 15.07.2005 as per Ex.P.8. Admittedly, this sale
deed is not disputed by the respondents at any point of
time. According to Ex.P.8, KHB has purchased 4 acres land
at survey No.951/1A situated at Saundatti village for
formation of residential layout at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre.
Relying on this sale deed, learned reference judge held that
the compensation granted by the SLAO is meager and held
that this amount can be considered to determine the
compensation.
18. Ex.P.6 is the paper publication given by KHB
dated 20.08.2008 calling for applications to allot the sites to
- 15 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
be formed in the KHB layout at different places which
includes Saundatti.
19. Learned counsel for appellant vehemently
submitted that Exs.P.4 to P.6 were not considered by the
learned Reference Court. Ex.P.4 is the sale deed executed
by KHB in favour of a purchaser of site formed out of survey
No.951/1 measuring East-West 12 mtrs. and North-South-
18.5 mtrs. This sale deed is dated 26.07.2013, whereas,
the preliminary Notification of present case was issued on
17.09.2009, i.e., about four years earlier to said sale deed.
Hence, rightly, Reference Court has not considered this sale
deed. Further, this sale deed is only in respect of a site
which is situated in the lay out already formed. Thus, it is a
developed area. However the acquired lands in present case
are not developed area but have NA potentiality. Hence, on
this ground also the said sale deed ought not to have been
considered by the Reference Court and rightly, it was not
considered by the Reference Court.
- 16 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
20. As far as paper publication given in Ex.P.6 dated
20.08.2008 is concerned, reference Court has not relied
upon it because only after developing the area, forming
layout, KHB has called for applications to allot sites at
Saundatti. Hence, non-consideration of market value
determined in this document by the reference Court is also
in right perspective.
21. Admittedly, the reference judge has categorically
held that the lands in question are having NA potentiality
because it comes within the limits of Kenchalarakoppa. They
are acquired for laying pipe lines. Petitioners-claimants have
not developed these lands as on the date of notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereas the area developed
by KHB is within Saundatti town limits. However, in the
area developed by KHB, the formation of sites are sold at a
considerable high price and thus that price cannot be
applied in respect of a distant land because the prices of the
layout sites vary on the ground of dimension, location,
access etc., and thus rightly not relied by the Reference
- 17 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
Court. However, the Reference Court relied on Ex.P.8 i.e.,
the sale deed of the year 2005 wherein 4 acres of land were
sold for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre in favour of KHB
for the proposed housing project and taking it as the base,
the learned reference court has given 10% increase against
the market price of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre per annum and
thus fixed the market value at Rs.5,60,000/- per acre. This
fixing of market value at Rs.5,60,000/- per acre by the
Reference court is in accordance with the principles laid
down by this Court and by Hon'ble Apex Court in several
cases.
22. Learned counsel for claimants relied upon the
following judgments: 1)CA No.410/1962 wherein parties are
M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur Vs. the Collector
of Madras, Civil Appeal No.4005/2005 arising out of SLP(C)
No.26866/2009 wherein parties are Mehrwal Khewarji
Trust registered, Faridkot and others Vs. State of
Punjab. C.A.No.2170-2171/2020 arising out of a
SLP(C)16954-46/2018 dated 17.03.2020 wherein parties
- 18 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
are Sajan Vs. The State of Maharastra and others;
C.A.No.6958/2013 arising out of SLP(C) No.24357/2010
wherein parties are Indraj Singh(dead) by LRs and
others Vs. State of Hariyana and another on
19.08.2013.
23. In these cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court time
and again has stated that there shall be some deductions
towards the developmental charges and also further
categorically held that when two or more sale deeds were
relied upon by the Reference Court, then the highest market
value which is admissible in law is to be taken in to
consideration and not the average market value.
24. Even in the instant case also, the Reference
Court has not taken the average value in the sale deeds but
relied only on one sale deed i.e. Ex.P.8 and thus, the arrival
of market value by the Reference Court is proper. However,
the respondents have not challenged the enhancement of
compensation, by the Reference Court. In the instant case
- 19 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
also, the learned reference judge has not considered the
average market value but has considered the market value
in one sale deed i.e., as per Ex. P.8 of the year 2005.
25. Further, no material is produced by the
appellant in both appeals for enhancement of the market
value of the acquired properties. Accordingly, this point is
answered in negative.
26. Point No.3:- cross objector has taken contention
that its duty is only to build infrastructure and then hand
over project to the respective local bodies or to the
Government and in this case respondent No.3 before trial
court is the beneficiary and handed over the project to them
and hence, its duty is only like the duty of contractor and it
is not liable to pay the compensation. In this regard, this
cross objector has taken this specific defence even before
learned trial Judge.
27. Learned trial judge has discussed this point in its
judgment at paragraph Nos.10 to 13 and held that present
- 20 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
cross objector along with other two respondents are being
Government bodies and all of them are jointly and severally
liable to make payment. However, some important
documents are not produced before Reference Court.
28. In this appeal, the cross-objector has produced
1) Estimate for Bulk Water Supply improvement to Hubli-
Dharwad Twin city with Malaprabha Reservoir as source 2)
Karnataka Government Resolution order 3) Order of
Karnataka Government and 4) Form-A and prayed for
absolving the liability of the cross-objector.
29. On perusal of these documents, we noticed that
the responsibility of the cross objector is only to make
estimation of the proposed project, install it and then hand
over it to respondent No.3 who is beneficiary.
30. In this regard learned counsel for the cross-
objector produced certified copy of the judgment passed in
WP No.102016/2018.
- 21 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
31. The learned counsel for cross-objector has
produced the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this
Court in WP No.102016/2018(GM-CPC) dated 25.03.2022,
wherein at paragraph No.4 held as under:-
"4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had
filed a Review Petition which came to be numbered as
Misc.No.15/2017 contending that the petitioner is only
a facilitating Nodal Agency or at the most the
implementing Agency or at the most the implementing
agency by the beneficiary of the plant being the
respondent No.1 herein namely Hubballi- Dharwad
Municipal Corporation. It is the respondent No.1 who is
required to make payment of the compensation
amount."
32. On careful perusal of the said order, in the case
of present nature, the learned single judge has passed an
order that present cross objector is not liable to make
payment and it is beneficiary under project i.e.
Commissioner, Hubli-Dharwad Municipal Corporation is
liable to make payment. In that case, at paragraph No.7,
the circular issued by the Chief Secretary was discussed and
- 22 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
it indicated that when there is dispute in between inter-
department of Government then, Inter-Departmental
dispute redressal Committee will address the same and in
the case of present nature, it was addressed and it is Hubli-
Dharwad Municipal Corporation is liable to make payment
and not the present cross objector and thereby said writ
petition was allowed.
33. In the present case also liability of cross objector
could be absolved and it could be fastened only on
respondent Nos.1 and 2 of said cross objection that is the
respondent Nos.1 and 3 before the Reference Court.
Accordingly, the point No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
34. Point No.4:-In view of finding on point Nos.1 to
3, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1) MFA Nos.101764/2015 and MFA
No.101809/2015 filed under Section 54(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are dismissed.
- 23 -
C/W MFA No.101809/2015,
MFA. CROB.No.100156/2022,
2) MFA Cross objection Nos.100156/2022 and
100029/2023 filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC
are allowed.
3) The award passed by the Tribunal in LAC
Nos.128/11 129/11 dated 23.02.2015 in respect of
awarding of compensation is confirmed; as far as
liability fixed on respondent Nos.1 to 3 is modified
and only respondent Nos.1 and 3 in LAC
Nos.128/2011 and 129/2011 are responsible for
satisfying the award.
4) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
HMB
CT-CMU
