Karnataka High Court
Basavaraju S/O Channammana Basavaiah vs Spl. Land Acquisition Officer on 26 June, 2013
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
-1-
CRP Nos.420/2011 c/w
421, 418 & 419/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
C.R.P.Nos.420/2011 C/W 421, 418 & 419/2011
IN C.R.P.NO.420/2011
BETWEEN
1. BASAVARAJU
S/O CHANNAMMANA BASAVAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.
1A. SMT.SUNDARAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJU
AGE: 50 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE
1B. YATISH S/O LATE BASAVARAJU
AGE: 27 YEARS, AGRICULTURE
1C. CHETHAN S/O LATE BASAVARAJU
AGE: 28 YEARS, LECTURER
ALL ARE R/O MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 26.06.2013 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KAVERI RESERVOIR CANAL, MYSORE
HEMAVATHI PROJECT, NAGAMANGALA
DISTRICT MANDYA-571401
-2-
CRP Nos.420/2011 c/w
421, 418 & 419/2011
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
DUDDA, DISTRICT MANDYA-571401 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.B.SHAHAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS DATED:10.10.2011 PASSED IN
LAC.123/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.),
MANDYA, REJECTING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/SEC.18(3)(a)
OF L.A ACT.
CRP NO.421/2011
BETWEEN:
DODDAMAYANNA
S/O RAJEGOWDA @ MAYIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/O JAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI
TALUK MANDYA-571 401 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KAVERI RESERVOIR CANAL, MYSORE
HEMAVATHI PROJECT NAGAMANGALA
DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
DUDDA, DISTRICT MANDYA-571401 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.B.SHAHAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS DATED:10.10.2011 PASSED IN
LAC.125/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.),
MANDYA, REJECTING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/SEC.18(3)(a)
OF L.A ACT.
-3-
CRP Nos.420/2011 c/w
421, 418 & 419/2011
CRP NO.418/2011
BETWEEN:
KARIGOWDA
S/O HALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/O JAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
DUDDA HOBLI
TALUK MANDYA-571 401 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVCOCATE)
AND
1. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KAVERI RESERVOIR CANAL MYSORE
HEMAVATHI PROJECT, NAGAMANGALA
DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
DUDDA, DISTRICT MANDYA-571401 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.B.SHAHAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS DATED:10.10.2011 PASSED IN
LAC.120/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.),
MANDYA, REJECTING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/SEC.18(3)(a)
OF L.A ACT.
IN CRP 419/2011
BETWEEN:
1. BASAPPA
S/O NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE
-4-
CRP Nos.420/2011 c/w
421, 418 & 419/2011
DUDDA HOBLI
TALUK MANDYA-571 401 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHANTESH S HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KAVERI RESERVOIR CANAL, MYSORE
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
NAGAMANGALA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HEMAVATHI PROJECT
DUDDA, DISTRICT MANDYA-571 401 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.B.SHAHAPUR, AGA FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRP IS FILED U/SEC.115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDERS DATED:10.10.2011 PASSED IN
LAC.122/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, (SR. DN.),
MANDYA, REJECTING THE REFERENCE PETITION U/SEC.18(3)(a)
OF L.A ACT.
THESE CRPs COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
These revision petitions by the land owners is directed against the common judgment dated 10.10.2011, passed by the Reference Court in L.A.C.Nos.120, 122, 123 and 125/2007. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has rejected the references made by the -5- CRP Nos.420/2011 c/w 421, 418 & 419/2011 Land Acquisition Officer on the ground that the references were barred by limitation.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the reference applications were made before the L.A.O. within 90 days from the date of service of notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended in Karnataka. Thereafter, the L.A.O. had referred the said applications within 3 years and 90 days from the date of their receipt and hence the references made were within the period allowed by law. In support of his submission, he referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Laxuman(AIR 2006 SC 24).
4. In my opinion, the judgment of the Reference Court lacks clarity as the relevant dates are not stated and it has not considered the matter properly in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxuman's -6- CRP Nos.420/2011 c/w 421, 418 & 419/2011 case though it has referred to the said judgment. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set-aside and the matters are remitted to the Reference Court for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Luxuman's case. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. The revision petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
5. In view of disposal of the revision petitions, all pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of.
Petitions disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.