Karnataka High Court
Ravindra Beedu vs Project Director on 19 April, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
MFA No. 2182 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2182 OF 2022(AA)
BETWEEN:
RAVINDRA BEEDU
AGED ABOUT 63 YEAWRS
S/O B. GOVINDA RAO
R/A8-5/603, PROVIDENT WELLWORTH
CITY APARTMENTS, MARASANDRA
DODDATUMKUR POST
BENGALURU-562163.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHETHAN A C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
MANGALURU
NO. 7-35/10(4), NEAR PUMPWELL
Digitally signed SHRI. MAHALINGESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD
by VANDANA S NEAR VIKYATH SERVICE STATION
Location: High KANKANADY, MANGALURU 575002.
Court of
Karnataka 2. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM
ASSISTANT COMMISIONER
KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT 576201.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UDUPI DISTRICT
RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL 576104
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHOBHITH N SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SMT. SHOBHA, HCGP. FOR R2 & R3)
-2-
MFA No. 2182 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
DECREE DATED: 26.11.2021 PASSED IN A.S.NO.10/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI, DISMISSING
THE SUIT FILED U/S.34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26.11.2021 passed in A.S.No.10/2019 by the Principal District Judge, Udupi (for short "the Trial Court") whereby the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the said Act of 1996") was dismissed by the Trial Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material on record.
3. The material on record discloses that respondent Nos.1 and 2 having acquired the subject land of the petitioner, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,79,368/- in favour of the appellant, who was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation -3- MFA No. 2182 of 2022 and sought for enhancement before respondent No.3-Arbitrator, who dismissed the claim of the appellant vide award dated 28.01.2019. Aggrieved by the arbitral award, appellant filed the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.10/2019 under Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 and the same having been contested by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the suit, aggrieved by which the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.
4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the same is not only on contrary to the material on record, but also to the parameters contained in Section 34 of the said Act of 1996 and the reasoning and findings recorded by the Trial Court in rejecting the claim of the appellant is based on surmises and conjectures and without considering the pleadings and evidence on record. In fact, the Trial Court has summarily rejected the claim of the appellant without even adverting or referring to the contentions and material put forth by the appellant for the purpose of seeking enhancement of compensation and consequently, since the impugned order is clearly contrary to the provisions contained in Section 34 of the said Act of 1996, without expressing any opinion -4- MFA No. 2182 of 2022 on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
5. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 26.11.2021 passed in A.S.No.10/2019 by the trial court is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all the parties.
(iv) All rival contentions between the parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl./Bmc