Karnataka High Court
Sri Anand Gupta P vs The Chief Secretary on 19 November, 2011
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP.22799/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL ORE DATED THIS THE. 19™ DAY OF NOVEMBER, 20] i . BEFORE THE HON BLE MEL ISTICE B.S } 9 PAT Le W.P.No.22799/2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRL ANAND GUPTA P. S/O LATE PS NARAYANA ser "I AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, - RESIDENT OF VALMIKI I IAGARA, Il MAIN ROAD, BEHIND DELUXE We SODLAND ia LOFEL . TUMBUR S72103. 0 © = 7 .PE y TONER (BY SRI aanunanioagon Ho. a ~ AND i. THE CHIEF SECRETA RY: GOVT. OF KARNATAKA. | VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-€ 98000 1. a) - +E SE .. RET, ARY, BEAR PMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPEMENT, MAS JDLE, DING, "BA ANGALS RE S600 Ol. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ~ TUMELE DISTRICT, PUMIRDR, OF WE ASSISTANT C OMMISS! ONER, TUMEUR DES TRIC TUMEUR. ah ° THE TAHSILDAR, TUMBUR DISTRICT, "TUMEUR. WP.22799/201 1 6. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, (MINISTRY OF SHIPPING ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS) TUMEUR HARTIARA DIVISION, TORMS TO 282 KMS NATIONAL HIGHWAY-4, DAVANAGERE., wad THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, TTUMBUR DISTRICT, TUMEUR, 8 M.KARUPANNAN, SINCE DEAD BY LEGAIPRE PRESENT. aviv E K.SHANMUGAM S/O LAT KAR IPANNAN,, PALLI PALYAM, NEAR SAIBABA PAPER FAC' PORY, PERIYAR DISTRICT. ERODE, TAMILNADU STATE. ~ 7 |. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT- PET HON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE -CONSTITUTION OF. INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-N THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDL. DIST. JUDGE COURT, AT.TUMBKUR IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.2/07 DT.6.4.11 AND ETC THIS PETITION 'COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
l. In this weit.petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by ihe Additional District Judge, ~Tombkur, in Arbitration Case No.2/2007 thereby dismissing LAN. 1 'led by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC see Ring his impleadmient as additional respondent. rE WP.22799/2011 3
2. Proceedings in Arbitration Case No.2/2007 are initiated by the National Highways Authority of India against the 46. respondent herein aggrieved by the award dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Arbitrator - the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, determining the amount of compensation payable 'to' the acquired lands in terms of the provisions contained tinder the National Highways Act, 1956,
3. The case of the National I lighys ays Author ily before the Court below in the arbit tration 'suit is that the award passed by the Arbitrater. epaiy . - Gambitisetonen enhancing the compensation oayable Was fitegar and unsustainable in law. 4, Petitioner, claims | io. be 'the purchaser of a portion of the ; rene lard under an Agreement of Sale dated 22.10.1997. de He-also ; relied wy upon a General Power of Attorney stated to have Desh r eect te. by "the 5S' respondent on 06.10.2005 in continuation of another General Power of Attorney dated P4090, 1998:
5, i This application was resisted by the 8 respondent. The _ Court below, on consideration of the respective pleas iaken by } 8 the parties, has dismissed the application nolding that the WP.22799/2011 petitioner had failed to produce the copies of the Agreemierit of Sale and the General Power of Attorney to show that-te-had ary. interest in the property. The Court below has also-found that the applicant -- petitioner herein had! failed" no-show. his locys, standi in the matter to appear in the < arbitration ¢ suit as hes WAS not a party belore the Arbitrator.
6, Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hanumanthappa submits that due to-old age,- petitioner was unable to produce the copies of the 'Agreement. of Sale and the Power of Attorney. However, he has produced the said documents along with this writ petition and therefore this ~Gurt may look into the same and remit the matter back for trésh consideration by the Court below.
af 7, Learned counsel for the respondent strongly supports the order passed and vetu tes the contentions urged by the counsel for the ue stition er Bo pon hearing the learned counsel! for the parties and on
-- perusal of the pleadings and ithe impugned order, I find that the _siope of the proceedings before the Court below which are initiated as per Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, .....
WP.22799/2011 1996 is confined only to consider the validity or otherwise ofthe of cormpensation out of the compensasion payable in respect of the lands in question is not the subject iratier of the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, petitioner could not hav € maintained this application to come ont record aS an additional respondent in the proceedings pending in nm the arbitration suit. Hf at all, the petitioner has any sight in, the property in question, he has to establish the 'sarie 'py. initiatin asi "appropriate proceedings in accordance wi th law "and not-by making an application for his impleadment in ine arbitration suit.
9. Hence, this. wit petition is dismissed reserving liberty to on dg.
; the pei titioner to. avail suel alternative remedy to establish his right. . |