Mohan S/O Rururao Koppa vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 3 October, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohan S/O Rururao Koppa vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 3 October, 2012

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

                                1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
              CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

       DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH

                MFA NO.20508/2009(LAC)

BETWEEN

1.   MOHAN S/O RURURAO KOPPA,
     AGE: 72, OCC: DOCTOR,
     R/O BAGALKOT.

2.   SANTOSH S/O BABURAO DESHPANDE,
     AGE: 46, R/O BAGALKOT,
     BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
     SMT.SHOBHA (SL.NO.3)

3.   SMT.SHOBHA W/O SRINIVAS KOPPA,
     AGE: 52, OCC: SERVICE, R/O BAGALKOT.

4.   SMT.SANDHYA W/O VIJAY KIRESUR,
     AGE: 40, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O BAGALKOT.
     BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
     SMT.SHOBHA (SL.NO.3)

5.   SMT.SNEHA W/O RAVI PANDURANGI,
     AGE: 38, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O BAGALKOT.
     BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
     SMT.SHOBHA (SL.NO.3)
                                            ... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADV.)
                                2




AND

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
B.T.D.A., BAGALKOT.
                                              ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.MEGHA C.KOLEKAR, HCGP)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 20.09.2008 PASSED IN LAC MISC.(REVIEW PETITION)
NO.76/2002 DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, REQUESTING THIS
REFERENCE COURT TO REVIEW ITS JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED IN LAC NO.172/01 DATED 27.08.2002 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDL.(SD), BAGALKOT AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION
OF THE REMAINING PORTION.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the claimants challenging the findings of the reference Court namely, Second Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Bagalkot in Review Petition No.76/2002.

2. According to the appellants, the very finding given by the inspecting authority is some portion of the property was unauthorized and the remaining portion of the property i.e., standing structures have been admitted that, it was prior to the issuance of the S.4(1) Notification. While negating the 3 claim of the claimants for enhancement of compensation, it has held that, the entire structure is unauthorized and the compensation has been denied.

3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the very finding of the investigating authority is that, there was a structure in existence and only portion of it has been unauthorized. Such being the case, there was no reason as to why the compensation has been denied.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader.

5. So far as structure in existence prior to the issuance of the S.4(1) Notification is concerned, necessarily the Land Acquisition Officer while assessing the loss/damages has looked into the standing structure or various other properties including standing structure etc. It appears only on the ground that some part of the structure is unauthorized, denying the compensation to the entire extent, appears to be unjust and uncalled for. So far as structure, which was in existence prior to the issuance of S.4(1) 4 Notification, whether legal or illegal, the same has to be taken note of for the purpose of assessing the compensation.

6. Hence, the impugned order passed by the reference Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the reference Court to consider the same in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the reference Court on 30.10.2012 and the reference Court is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible.

If Court fee is paid, the same to be refunded to the appellants.

Sd/-

JUDGE MBS/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court