Karnataka High Court
Sri Narasimhaiah vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 October, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.47262 OF 2013 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Narasimhaiah,
Son of Narasappa,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at Chakovalli,
Dandinashivara Hobli,
Turuvekere Taluk - 572 227. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. K. Shantharaj. K, Advocate)
AND:
The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Hemavathi Canal Division,
Tumkur - 572 101. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. R.B. Satyanarayana Singh, High Court Government
Pleader)
*****
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
dated 14.2.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
Turuvekere, in LAC.No.30/2007, under Annexure-A and the
order dated 15.3.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge,
(Sr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Turuvekere, in
Misc.No.22/2009, under Annexure-B, as illegal, erroneous on
the face of the record, resulting in miscarriage of justice and
against to law.
This Writ Petition is coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
The petition coming on for preliminary hearing, the learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice and the petition is considered for summary disposal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the absolute owner of land in Sy.No.124/1 measuring 8 guntas of Chakovalli village, Turuvekere Taluk and the said land was acquired by the respondent for the formation of Hemavathi canal as per preliminary notification dated 9.11.1989 and the subsequent award passed in the year 1992. The matter was sought to be referred to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation 3 and was accordingly referred to the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tiptur. The matter was numbered as LAC No.101/1995, but with the creation of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Turuvekere, the matter was said to have been transferred to the said Turuvekere Court and renumbered as LAC No.30/2007. It transpires that after the transfer of the case, the Advocate for the petitioner had remained blissfully absent and the Reference Court had dismissed the Reference Petition for non-prosecution by an order dated 14.02.2008. Thereafter, Misc.No.22/2009 was filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CPC', for brevity), seeking to have the order set-aside and to have the reference petition restored to file. That was decided ultimately on 15.03.2012. The court having dismissed the same, the present petition is filed. It is that which is under challenge in this petition.
3. The petition is not complete in its details. It is apparent that there has been want of diligence on the part of the 4 counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner himself, in prosecuting the matter before the Reference Court, notwithstanding that it may have been transferred to another court and have been numbered differently. However, the petition under Order IX Rule 4 CPC also having been taken on record and having been decided on merits, would indicate that on the face of it, the petitioner may not have any case.
4. However, in the larger interest of justice, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a person who has been deprived of his sole source of livelihood and since he is before the court seeking enhancement of compensation, no injustice would be caused if the petitioner's case is considered and is provided with appropriate compensation. The only other aspect to be taken into consideration is that, any interest that may be paid on the compensation amount ought to be denied for the period during which there was laxity in the prosecution of the proceedings and therefore, from the date of dismissal of the original Reference Petition for non-prosecution, till the 5 dismissal of the petition under Order IX Rule 4 CPC, in Case Misc.No.22/2009 dated 15.03.2012, the petitioner shall be deprived of any interest if in the event there is grant of enhancement of compensation made to the petitioner. With that direction, the petition is allowed. The Reference Petition in LAC.No.30/2007 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Turuvekere stands restored with the further condition that the petitioner and his counsel shall participate at the proceedings on every date of hearing and if there is any default on the part of the petitioner or his counsel, the court below shall deal with the matter accordingly, and there shall be no reconsideration of any such relief as prayed for in the present petition, in future.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS