Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd vs Y K Parameshwara Jois on 11 February, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd vs Y K Parameshwara Jois on 11 February, 2011

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

IN THE HEGH Coism OF KARNATAKA AT' BANG:£5f\'L?f3:R:EvV,4

DATED THES THE 11" DAY 0:: Fgaauaizy',    

BEFORE?  

THE HQWLE MRS. ausnce'B§J;..§§A'GATRA%H.NA 

WRIT PETITION NOV.1-$334291i(LA*R.$S)VV'E:/W" 
WRIT PETETION NQ%s.107/V201;1,98/2011i._1;,f>/2011,
1:1/2911, 112,ef.é'§*--:117AI\§--_..F),%"1';t3!;.2_;§.)11 (LA--RES)

BETWEEN:  

Karnataka 4-P'oyvéjf_C;orgicra-t_VE..on.._4i_t:ﬁ.., , 
Represenited _:by_ its "--H.ea'd}},Leg&sf Service,

Shaktht"'Bhaij§an,"'fl; " .9 .
#82,IRaCe C'0vur$_e"«R0'a.d,"-.,_ . '
Bangz%iA§_ore_ -- 'iS6UnCJ'O 1';  V» " 

 _    "  PETITIONER
 - V    (common in an W.Ps)
(B4y'SI'iL..N§Dir1€ASh' Rae", Adv.)

%A 'ANS:  I

 ~.i; .__'v'.Vi€;.~§a:ﬁa'r*:f:'ééhwara 3335,

 E'v'Eaj.£').r}'$/'0, Krﬁshna Eois,
R/Q, K"a"vari véilage,
Hosanagar Talsgk,

V» * :.__Shi'm0ga District.

 'Ramakrishna Bhat,

Niagor, S/0. Anantha Bhat,
R/G' Kavari viélage,
Hegaaagar Talzsk,
ﬁhimaga Qistrict. 5

E:
X: .r'
. #/ ,4



E.-J

Special Land Acquisition Officer;
Hoganagara,
Shérnoga District.

Lakshminarayanappa,

Major, S/0. Krishnappa,' 
R,/0. Ulakappa Yedur ViiEag4é';._%
Hosanagar Taiui-4,  '
Shimoga District.  _

  .é£§:ef,i>{§>IE%i DE  ., "
 (in i:v.%*mn9/2231':..¢) J

Speciai Land Acquiis:}:i_TQ'n    

Hosanagara,   _ 
Shimoga _D.:§tr.i_ct. 

.    éitiha, n a  h atté 

E'/Eajosr,' §,/o'.=i?:a r_amésij\2va'r" 'Bhat,
R,/'o=. uN'eeratE)attu vi-1£_a'g.F:';
Hosanagar T'a_Eua}:., " 

_Shimog"a ._Diswtr'Ect."-

CS;j,.e'Cia'§ Land 'A'ic'c:i:;§isétion Officer,

* -V _ Hovsa.n*avg'a.r_a,

9"'?

E\\.§

  ':3hisnéo'ga"[-Qiistrict.

 L-.._.«RaVié1a8hat,
 __-SS/9. Manjasazath Bhat,

Major, R/'o. Karnakatte véiiage,
Hosanagar Taiuk,
Shimoga Sistrict.

Speciai Land Acquisition Gffécer,
Haﬁanagara,

5?".
./~,

 RESPONDENTS

(in W.P.107/2011) RESPONSENTS (in mamas/2011) ,:~.>' Shimoga District.

B.S,\fenkatac:ha!aiah, Major, S/'0. B.\!.Subramanyayya,_ R/0. Baggadali viiiage, ' Hossanagar Taiuk, Shimoga District.

:w.E$§Q;{1'_[3;%:?§'rs (m V; 1 ;;."e,{20i -1) ~ _ Speciai Land AcquE§;%té'icn"O_ffi¢}e},"--j"

Hosanagara, _ ._ V Shimoga D@_str_§ct. --

Y. k~..Pé ra ' Major-,__S/Q. K.r_ishna_J"_eEs, R/_ca. Mz3'tt;;gakaur:. viﬂage, V, ._;ﬁHosAanaga"r'-Taluk,v Shiimoga Déstrft:'t';' '' Acquisition Officer, _ '--._HOSan_va_ga,ra, ' Shémog--abistrict.

8.R.\fas:,zdeva Rae, Major, Sfo. Ramachandra Rae, R/0. Uiichagé viifage, ﬂosanaga: Taiuk, \ §',?¢::Vu4,¥ ,\ , RESPONDENTS (in W.P.111/2011) RESPONDENTS (in W.P.112/2011) Stiimoga District.

2. Speciai Land Acquisition Gfficery Hosanagara, Shimoga District.

3 :2...iiiES-i50"i\i'D_Eir»i:TS (in ii§if.i>...ii:3;*i2'01t;iVV W.P.N0.109/2011 is rai'eit;§*undei? Artic.ie_"si 2'2%3"ar{e 227"

of the Constitution of indie, 'pr_aying to quasbfithe order dated 21.08.2010 passed.the"rCivii Judge (Sr.bri.) Sagar, in Execution i>'--eti'ti_on_ No.89-/_2i003_t, copy of which is Droduced as Anriexure -- E5.' 0 ° W.P.NQ.,i.Q7-/2011 is_Vf«iie~d"unjder Artistes 226 and 227 of the Conysittitussioh .0? Ihdia,,.;i:raying""to quash the order dated 27f'.08y._'2.0"1"0'--.__ pa-sjs.ed-- .__by 'Vtiie' Civii Eudge (Sr.Dn.) Sager, in Exesidtion Petitii.orxi\io..2}9/2004, copy of which is p rod u'c'ed' ~a_s"jAri néoéu re . g*B, W;"Py,NroV.1V053/20.01iiiiséfiied under Articles 226 arid 227 of th_e Coiist_itution "of "indie, praying to quash the order dated <?.9,07;2010 passed by the Civii Judge (Sr.Dn.) S'a.g{ar,;in=E><ecuti'o'i'i"Petition No.82/2003, copy of which is . jproduced-as-Ahnexure ~ B. 'i:*i=;'cié>.yyi\i'-oy;i;1o;2o11 is ﬂied under Articies 225 and 227 of_4thet.C0'ri.stitution of India, praying to quash the order da'ted"g29.'O7.2010 passed by the Civii Judge {Sr.Dn.) Sagas', in Execution Petition No.24/2004, copy of which is *;::ro_dec"ed as Annexure ~ 8.

W,@iNo.3.11/2011 is ﬂied under Articies 226 and 227 __of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order ' dated 29.0?.2010 gassed by the Civil Eudge (Sr.Dn.} Sager, in Executieh Petition No.93/2003,, copy of which is oroduced as Annexure -- B. .2 , W.P.i'\io.112/'2011 is fiied under Arectes 22e..e»n.tin..22? of the Constitution of India; praying to quash tide-..o.rci-«er dated .29.o7.2o1.o passed by the Civil iusige'r»gs--i;fen.g'}.., Sagar, in Execution Petition No.86/2003, comr of'ewhich..tiis produced as Annexure - B. w.e.No.1:3/2e1: is filed ii=ede.i-~eeAétiee:e.sri.:i2e'zirie of the Constitution of India, pra'y.i__ng.V_to qeeshi;he»_4orderu dated 21.08.2010 passedw'ii:;««\,( the'-..Ci'-xii ;i'iid.ge.._H{S_r.Dn.)f Sagar, in Execution Petition"E\i,o'.76/200?,'eoi3\/"of which is produced as Aimexure ~» 8. --. ' ii These petitions"«--comin_g "fe'r'vvi.oi*ders this day, the Court made the foiiowingi: L " ' '~ 'eii; iiiieee "wf*ii 'o_et'itions the petitioner has chaiiehged tiieVVn'i.éiinta.i_Lij'ahiiity of the execution proceedings by the reseorid.en._tsA'and"has sought quashing of the order passed..VAir1..rthe res'*--e--ct'ive execution proceedings. ' ..'2;e...:"i"he.V;§etitioi'ier is the Karriataka Pewer Cloreoration i;i:.niteVd~,~ ediich is the beneficiary in respect of acquisition Agpgroceedings initiated by the State Government. The iands of the respondents herein were acquired and thereafter the ___3awai'd was passed. Subsequentiy the respondents herein, who are the ciairnaets sought enhancement of cempeesetion by seeking reference before tiie corneeteiit i:'<.i»=n reference Court The reference Ceurt meeifiee the--eaward. Eet the Special Land Acquisition Officer Chaiiensged"E?iijea:.s'eid awards before this Court in varieue misc'e.|.i'araeeiJ:'s"i'i_i§stk*. apgaeais-,, contending that the arﬁoent ".4aw:etdVe.d :25}: the ' Reference Court is en the hVighet':'s_ieein' Th§é_;H.aJtC.Zr:tw{," F;éi§4'jiVF'1'§'_}u on the juegement in Vttie:"'~..,:aseV' n.r:iFs'L.ANb' ACQUISITEON OFFICER--VS,4"$ii3§t_T.§AY/3iMI\iA"passed in MFA Ne.139/1986, redticedi the 'icev§1ape'§§saet»:.§nby orders which came to be'..pé:$S-ed During the in the misceiianeous first aitipaeals, that the claimants are entitied to A.iadditio4na|_:V ben'ef§'t-5 "aim higher soiatium under Section Q2"iﬁ~i«:2)i»--."ef the Landiiiiéiequisition Act, as amended and higher' 'threatens:::e--fJ."4i%'nt.e:..est on the enhanced ameunt of the Ce44ij§'ipei's~s:av"t.ioiVn under Section 20(A) of the said Act as Aameinded and the additionaé amount on the market vaiue x"x--._V'3.§:u.*'l59'e under Section Z3(1"/~\:i as inserted by the A iamending Act 68/Qégeubject to the decision of the Apex Court in the case ei' BHAG SIi\J{3H ANS QTHERS -- VS w Lii'i:fIO§'\i TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH E1985) 3 SCC ?37°, ~'i°/2 ,,. , After eisoosal of the miscellaneous first appe:a»:l's,.o the respondents preferred the execution pe'tit:i<:>ns~~~e.n§§é__'__iif§ tite year 2003.

3,, It is the case of thelzipetttiiorlelroherele-..thet.,t_th'e filing of the execution petit_ions"'~;S'*.,Qg~/onct twelve years and therefore th'e..cxlVecree this Court Cannot be executed' e.S"«.the.§VlVe;rett1_tiVoin'petitione were filed beyond the period of "'Gn"t.hve-V"said question of limitation, tiée iexeVcutEori;C'eurt..hee'r'd---~the matters and has hele*...that' 'petitions are rnaintainable by piacing re._i_4ianvce"onVe d.et:ieEon of the Apex Court in the case eféi<:';sr; eAe':ee:oR:\tAN -- vs - STATE OF KERALA AND .A {i*39__4) 5 SCC 593 and thereafter has computed H ~.th-exevediéozéel"Vz:on'ipeneation based on the eirectioneissued thi--SR.Ceurt in the miscellaneous first appeais and has 1-» 9- 2* _ ?€é,,e;~ gr.a_.nte't§l%anﬁ;ount. The sale order is chelienged in these writ

- Vleetitioes,

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the 4*]. :5 eetitiener.

5, It is vehemently contended on heh.e'ift:'jo_i"'--t'he petitioner that the respondents filed the e><er;j'i.i--tion:'ii.etito=nS'V. beyond the prescribed period of_ii»iiiii:etio_:*2."iV§f§'ejsé the execution petitions are fiied thei the misceiieneous first ep'o.e_e'isV_fiieAd' Land' Acquisition Ciffieer were disxo.osed_ 'of bY"L;f*i'iS._ACA€§{JFt in the year 1989 and white"tiisposi_neVAivoiﬁ"tih_e,:s'a_me it has stated that the addi_t'i*o._nai :'b'enef:its_"'t}§.,._a't it-theiiresoendents are entitied t:o_é_.th..e :i'eeis;iohmoi' the Apex Court in ~ ._;»<fi:jat,.Z'-' Shag '3 case was decided in the year ';t98'S.__.end.iitinefeiore the respondents ought to ha\re.,fiied't'i2eV executionispetitions within a period of tweive '' éyeai4s?~fii<orn..i:he sevidwdate. However, the execution petitions fiied in the year 2083 and therefore the eA>:ecution_irisetitions were not maintainabie as they were hit Aby theiiew of Limitation and under the circumstances, the 'exetuting court was i"%Ot right in placing reiiance on the , Vfziecision of the Apex Court in /<.S.Paripoomen's cage. He therefore submitted thet the execution petitions were not fig" L,-V ezeinteihebie.

5. Learned counsei for the petitioner has attention to the decision of the Apex Ceiirt case, UNION OF mom » vs -- Rieeieooeieiietri--i:,;;e"'{ro1eArt>)V" it BY LRS, ETC.,(:t989) 2 sec: 75-egeariindi'evisd"theeet:irr;;i'en:i-in_ Pariiyoornans case, to conteVn"d..V_that" since "t.hi§._;'C'e~ert had' heid that the ciairrzardls w0uqFdd.----ViV§.\ev«.e'ntitEed' t'e-the.v'§additi0naE benefits in terms of th'e'i"d-eCis_it}-.n} S:'ngl7's case, the respondents might irzieﬁtecution petitions wxthin a period t'wei'ye_.g,'.ears ffrem date of decision in the i;¢fiVtteir"i<:e§.e,_érdied the decision in Bhag Sing/2'$'«t:ase ' the instant case execution eetitions e"re..:Vf'iied in the year 2003 and therefore they oijehti.-.to have bevenudismissed as being hit by the Law of " z ":7, die order to Consider and answer the question Traiiis._ed the eetitioner, it is necessary to understand the iitjiricttmstances under which this Court had directed that the it wresgiiondents are entitled to additionai beeefits in terms of the decisien in ﬁneg Singhe cese eiie then answer as to 3' 293 X', , 10 whether the execution petitions were fiied in i;irn:e._Vand therefore maintainabie.

8. Section 23 of the Land Aceuisi.tE-:i.Aifi'f.Act::(ihere'in. "--._ after referred to as the '?rinc'ipai...,ércti'}ra9 .b.r'esCribe'sAi.:.tne matters which are requir_ed to 'be r,~cdns:idere;dVi determining the comnensatioiyniitiy the "ﬁnder Section

18. Sub section (2);..o'f;Seotionv"23_»cieaI_s with solatinm to be paid in coVnsidera.ti._o:n-.cott.he°"coi'nio--d'isory nature of acquisition. to_the i3L._ia"nd.:_'Aco'ri'i'sit'ion (amendment) Act of .1384; '(hereifnviiaftAei'i*r.:':refei'red as the 'Amending Act'), 15% ofuthéei ma'rket'._va.i:_L.i'e of the iand was required to be ua_¢,~ 59;g{'{i';;.mf _____ __Under Section 28 of the Principal Act, » op-royisV'io«n'«..A:b'as been made for payment of interest on the *-amount".".'j-.wi:.ir:h has been awarded as compensation in e>r44ce.ssV.«of'tVhe sum awarded by the Coiiector. Prior to the i'An'1.«end'ing Act, the said interest was payable at the rate of 'A"§65/aiper annum. Simiiariy under section 34 of the Principal Act, provision is made for payment of interest on the ernoant of cenzeensation. when the said ameent is not 'xx 11 paid or deeositee befere taking cempensation prior to the Amendment Act, the said interes.'t:~-wee".§§e3rz§'t;Eei*, at the rate of 6% eer annum. iaw €:0s'éfé4rn.§V:ssi{3;3_'_macieVV' certain recemmendatiens to the»ae'#_er'idn'ien_t' ef Acquigitioe Act which was t'n:fc.d_uced'- is: the i..o'i<._:ai"'Sai3jha on ' 30.04.1982 and arnendinVg....fA'ct '--»c_ame" ~i.ni:e_.:§ force on 24.09.1984. The ameridiihg}'\ci}.Vi§ri4no..$ﬁrarious amendments to the Principa_i}\.§:t. of the amending Act was:.«'iri:-xerted. "a.:,._«_é:-..._t:ar§.sitionai provision to the amending'ASre,t:tioriV'3.23.o'r'«».t'he Prihcipai Act.

9."".:'n' the c'é;e"of'..'t'KAMALANJAMMANNIAVARU -- vs - smi§e:A~: LA:\i'o'--..ci(;Qi,i:s:"rIoN OFFICER (1985 13cc: 582) a »;tw..<'.§ ..-:JL:%d<3iVe"v___Bench of the Apex Court rejected the H'-c::ﬁ<:;nrteVVnti.r%rif1_ jéhfat the amendment to the gorovisions of Sei::t.%.o?éa 2'3f(2} regarding enhanced soiatium at the rate ef 'A38?/o imas appiicabie to aii preeeedings in regard to :A"g:en€een5atioh which had not become fénai, whether it is 'HiZ)E?¥'3C3Ef"i§ before the Coiiector, Court, High Ceurt er $I..i;:)rerne Ceert aged heid that the ameeded erovisieris of X AWN?

~51 12 eectien 23(2) wetzid apply to awards made, afjte-r the commencement of the amending Act and En«v..1,fi§§f'~'?~f'_'€>'l7;~ ythxe sub section (2) of the Section 30 of the if said amending provision would a§lsele'ppl3r'tO'axr§}ar';if,$"rnVad«e by the Collector or Court lﬁefore 24.09.1984 and to orders m'é'd:e"l»by %~llg'h_V_C'et"}-rt fer élupternew Court in appeals agavinst_ 10t Thereafter a5-three:73u--ci_e'e.'.:'V8»e§lnch of the Apex Court in Bhe-g"§§fi:gh'ef the View taken in the ease ofVKe2mefejanfrn.anniavarau and heid that under sub selction (21; seeon 30 of the amending Act, the prrgn/lvsitons of arnendeci Section 23(2) and section 28 _nn.edre"~..Veppllcable to all proceedings relating to ._{fetepenlwtlegnlvllpendlng en 30.04.1982 or iiiecl subsequent tef"'titat'da3:e; whether before the Collector or before the " Ce_t:rtV"ot the High Court or the Supreme Cotirt, even if they "'r--:h'a%}e finally terminated before the enactment of the "ernending Act, it is eecessary to observe that when this Ceert eaeses the orders in the eppeais fiiee by the Speeiai A;:,»f,.«__ .

/= "' 13 Lane Acquisition Officer, the said order was subjeetto the decision in Shag Singffs case. Shag S;'ngh.TS__'44'€:e$e'~Ve.{$93.5 decided on 14,G8.1985. However the cortt_re»,!:erSfy.did end there. tn the case of uwteiig" zjeme Aixt_eiz;VN_Cn'~"ee'e VS RAGHUBIR SINGH ({)EA»E>_BY "d(3C'vE;€§E.«(f)"&*1.iVtitty Shag Sirzg/1'5 case was OV€F.'V'Fl:lV}"€»d. "§'he_.s'eeEd= deciéiiion was rendered on :6.05.1.<§z3£9_ stfbeeoééentti'-to thevvorders passed in the misceiianeous Court. It was held that the"ir;1VLc:j':"easi;e in-:eoi'at:i'k;§'ft1..toV:T'3'O% u/5 23 (2) of Princvivbbatiiy to aerards made by Coiiector or Ceurttibetween.V30A:.;Oe1§;'1.§8r?;"and 21.04.1984 and not before and-the beheifit Vextendied to the appeais decided in respect ' Qo'Fr----sauC.h'Aa\}vards ovnthfbetween the said period and amended not be granted by the High Court and S»ti__:prev_n'i~e' 'iijeurt and the benefit under the amended xpro\?:sE_.o'e Couid not be granted by the High Court and V."'.AA"S_et>'reme Court in respect of the awards made by the fcetiector or Ceurt prior to 3o.o4.1ee2. Therefore, techniceliy speaking the respondents wouie have hee 12 years frem the date ef decisive it: Ragheeér Stages case E m,,: a rt» 14 that is from 16.05.1989 to fife the execution:V:'p-et--iti'e.ns which wouid have been until the year 2031. 11,. However, the contrcin/ersys«Afjiné'-_re.speCi:~"of..,;~h'e additionai benefits that theV.E'e.n.d ow'n_er's are.»e'dnVVti.t§'Ved not come to an end with the'i'i'd.ec§sVion'iii S:'ngh's C359' BY 'then this decision in the case or SPECIAL LAND DANDELI, VS. SOMAH Karnataka 179) which is cvcfnstruing section 23(1--A) of the P-rinciVp"af'fA%cit,,Vééteojirwean that in afi pending cases whetheriion%irefeVren<:e"o.r'..'on appeai the Court is required to a§3p:i:Y'vvDrOVi5jV.Oh5«-Q.f_~$LEb Section (1~A) of section 23 in . :;:iet_e:'mining""the compensation payabie to ciaimants. The H *s;éi.,d? oijin'i'*e.h'A'o:=.eQVas however reversed by this Court in the case..0'§_Lfi\i4§ON or INDIA ~ vs « FILIP TIAGG DE GAMA or 'veozEM"'vAsco he GAMA (1990 sec 277) by the Apex Couirt.

:2. The view taken by the Apex Court in the ease of Fifi; Tfago was reversed by three -- Eudge Beech ef the B).

15 Apex Court in the Case 0? UNION OF INDEA «~ SING?-I r1992 1 sec 573). The decisient:-.in'ifftaeghtiee.» Singrfs case was distinguished o_n...the g_roiin't§i'.'ft»ha't,it,w-as"r "

mairiiy concerned with the pr0VR:$<E'On1$'VG'f the amending Act with wtii{;§'i*~...the Ciiurt_W»asA"«ri'ot...cf*irectiyii' concerned. The correctnesse_.o_f:'th_e'yiew 'taE<,e'n Vin the Zora Sing/5's case was dotihted Etidge Bench iri i<.s.eAR1PeoR_rii«A__ii ve;"si[itfre Q:ei<e'R,{§fi';A' (1992 scc 684) and a ref.e-i"evn_ce_.y$:asihjacie tofa iarger bench. In these circui,:tistahicei.s_., Bench of the Apex Court was constituted decision in the case of Par_ipooi'nah...e ' ~ Paripooman's case/_ the Apex Court was '--co:*u:errie'I£ij-.i«€ioit'E"i the appiicatien or provision of sub section ($43.) section 23 as introeuced by the amending Act to 2 AAa'ic'c§.oisi'tion proceedings which were pending on the date of aV'§C(§i".3A'im@nC£im€§"it of the amending act in reiation to pending ' preceedings. In Par:',oeorr.>an's case it ie cericiuded in respect cf the acqtiisitien proeeedirigs initiated erier te the ,- (.

16 date ef ceirimeiicement of the amending Act, the ciayment of additicmai amount payabie under section Princieai Act wit! be restricted to the matters"'r:efe.rre:d_ ti:i'~ir_1 "~ ciause a and ciause b of sub se.cti0inA' the Amending Act. Zora Sin_gh'si'cases, in s,'o'.i.f:a.:r as 'iiiheidg that the said amount is in aEE_'c'aaes.'Iwhere the references are pendirig b_eV.for:et*- Areferericex Court on 24.69.1984 irrespective '7«::=f date,V.enV_*:w.'i;jch the amount i * _' was paid bY;thC's;;COEie:Ct0:' was"heE.s['e.e...l.onger correct Law. a?

":,_14'; It note that the clarity in respect of the ei'it.'itile,mVeri_tV'of' additioriai compensation by the lari-:3. owners was,E_eai<;hed by a series of decisions rendered ' L1V3'§'.,VtH~€vVA{§53£'COE.EE't and iiitimatety finality was reached in whet'aeci_i;tia:ipin the case ef K,S.Paripoornan rendered on 124:Q9;"1.V9.9e. it is necessary to observe that the decision in i??a'~:i_aeernan's case in the year 199% was within the tpireiseribed the period of iimitation in as much as tiil 2001 i the respondents ceeid fiie execution petitions. Hewevei, since this C(}t,ii"{ vrhiie dispasirig at the apgeais filed by the 1?

Speeial Land Acquisitien Officer made tine r.-:ftl~efr'l~«_:j'i;';rlth regard to the compensation subject to the-'4"%*e$:;il't':ht:'af ciecleiaii in Bhag Singffs case whi»evh._was.'_'ovVe'r'sé?iele(;liin their year 1989 and which was felloiived7'.'_'b§/iv a'll'<:¥_ev};éssie_e Court which was also oveVrl--_,l:f%;:-~E.eti the_VV2'5\p:e'>€.:"Caa'rt and'? thereafter the controzyersy in.'thei.,.ca.Vse ef Zora Singh and ultimately' in the case of Paripoomari .af_l:esﬁ_ a a Larger Bench, the positi€o«ra:""»Q_f of the land owners fV()"A¥'1Aalt§_di§lé{flal--.:C'O«lllp€llSta'tlOl"1 was not settled till the year 1994'. _ '

15. '4"lTi§e"eem.§'noén. questions for consideration in all ' Atheiilg.-bove..&A'mentVlVe'ned cases had their genesis in Bhag I "S_infgi;'2.Ts'--«._;ase-.._.}~§ince Bhag Singffs case was over ruled in Ra.ghz{bir_;f%~ingh's case and the controversy did not end or AAaTttai.i'i-ﬁnality till the Larger Bench of five judges of the ';«~'»k.pe'>< Ceurt gave its opinier: in Paripooman's Case an a Eeference, the starting paint of ilmitatiori fer the purpose ef tiaese cages waule have been reckaeed as 12t§.19943aeé if, 5' W31. »v M ,. M 18 not the date when Shag Smgh's case was eecided'e":t3"':'=e.ever ruled. In fact when this Coert passed the judgmfeVnt__j'i§ﬁ:_th.e misceifaneeus first appeais on 23.1(}.1986.;the.nCe.fre4(:tne§su9 of the decision in Shag .i~3'ingf$ ;c:ej;e'_'we--s'v.._t Ljntjer consideration by a Bent:h_of fhie"'-judgeeht :Ra§;h'ubff"t' Singffs case, which renderet'd.:_V'it5_ opénieneéjh '::6.5.1989. The controversy howe ver etd continued te seize the attentiorz_Qf't'thVe--'Ce'u"tt;t'¥--ViE the year 1994, when the op'ifzie:nh'in theica'ee."0f Paiiooiornan was rendered on a:,:Vtefet:enee Hlfherefore 12.9.1994 has to be coEi::=E_d'ereci asA:}che""aet'art'i'ng point of imitation as far as the --reeponGe:hts~ hereintvere concerned. . «fit is to be noted that the finaiity in the I which was reached in the year 1994, was w"§thih.__"'thAeA prescribed period of imitation since the ..respt)':"a~t:iergts any way had time til! 2001 to fiie the "g_V'e':-«<e'i:ut%eé; eeees, However, in the Eight 0? the eeveral

--V:d€(ZiSiOF}S of this ceurt: as wet! as the Apex Court and there heieg ee finaiity with regard te the entitlement of the z"

. of 19 respondents for additienei compensation, the i*esoo;n'dents Cotiid eniy seek eéditienai compensation eiice:i~«ti*:eeii>i§slitioiT:

ef iaw was settled by the decision of Peripoornaﬁs ease in the year *The:r'e~feije orescribed period of limitation weeieizave steiebief :9eci<o"neci'g from the date of decision ot"i'i'Pe:'.',ooo:'nanits'Ease in which event, the fiiing petitions by the respondents herein tiieervescribed period of limitation. i_Fhe'}:ie.?'ore::-.the "exeCu:ti"nqv-Court was justified in hoiding thati;ij.,eHVe§<ecet'i'env gsaetitions were maintainabie by piacing"reIi'anee on ..t"neVGe_eisié3n in Pen'poornan's case. 2 Hence tne--..iAitit pietitiens are rejected as been devoid

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court