High Court Karnataka High Court

Hanumanthappa vs Ajaykumar on 25 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Hanumanthappa vs Ajaykumar on 25 November, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
191 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT 

ATDHARWAD' =  _ .
Dated this the 2591 day of November,    

BEFORE;  

THE I-I0!l'BLE MR. JU8;i'ECE'{ Ni xi":1I\§'.'s:_1§   

'Writ Petition 'No. 77;3é'~o§_g008 _{GML»CP€_?y~ 
Between: V' t' V

Hanumanthappa

S/0 Ningappa Honnatti
Aged about 68 ye.-53$
R/o Ra11ebenx1};:r"««.V   g   '  .. _ V_

District flavcxie  ,1 1.53  2 . - f . V   Petitioner

 (By; 's§:_--.Ma 15$.  'as; Smt. sona Vakkund,
 % % *  '"g AQ'V.pQ9.t£35)

 _ 1 .   .

& " S['».6ABha1'an1_ agdiiéia Harlahaih
" -. 2 1'~;.ged%a1:;0*::Lt 1? years
V 'E?  

2 " ._ ;§sh.-;.; ' 5 
 Q;"---:3 B 0uda Harlahaiii
Ageri about 19 years

 ~  R/bH1:11h' all:

, _ éflajeshxxzarinagar 
' "District Haveri -- 58 1 1 15

VT   Snjatha

W/0 Bhaxaaouda Hariahafii
Aged about 42 years
R] 0 Hulihalli



_ 3 _
Now residing at Rajcshwarinagar
Ranebcnnur
District Haveri --- 581 1 15

Respondent No.1 is minor represented by
M/g Smt. Sujatha

W] 0 Bharamagouda

Harlahafii

Respondent No.3

4 The Land Acquisition Ofiicer and

Assistant Commissioner  é . ~ __ VV 

(By Sri F V Patil, Advzocatéifoffi 1  °
Sri K B Adyapauk~,._AGA "for R4) '   

This i&%€;iti:._P::_titiii:1.i§:~.fi1:§d"1iniici*ia1fic1cs 225 and 227 of
the Co11st1mt1e_n €15, i_nii.ia,.__pIa'y§31g.~vto quash A1mexure~E, an

order §assed"b§rVthe"Ci\ri1{I1idgc (Sr.D13..), at Ranebennnr in LAC
No.25/Q5, on IA' 1&1,'  '~1.9¢4»2003.

This' Writ  #6933' ing on for orders this day, the
Court made flax; ifollc;-.Wii;:g:'  '

ORDER

iifitiiioncr has challenged the order passed by the

Refci§3n<i§_ impinadmg the respondents as party

i' if_"':1:e::§i;59<:2I:a£i2m£s to prmeedings under Section 18 of the Land

' ficqfiisifion Ac'; 3/

2. The subgect matter of the suit is
Sy.No.120f4 measuristig 2 acres 26 V2
Koonabeu Village, Raarmebenniir Vtheu i f
subject matter of acquisition. jittie
was shown as notified katheée1′;..:}§.3;1 itiejiessecli.’ it
Petitioner being aggrievetl iieoxtipeiisatziorii awarded,
sought reference. Eieqiiisifion Oflieer has
referred the 1};_atte1–__ to Veciijudication of the
correct At that stage
Iespondentse ;iiode–::e13.}appfieation under Order 1
Rule as parties to the said

reference case is that they have filed a suit

_ the forigzartition and separate possession. The

»s§1bjectVArx3atte1=Vof acquisition is also the subject matter of the

contest, the Civii Court has declared that

resifics-nc1ezite”‘V’ are enfifled to 3/4*” share. Aggrieved, the

it petitioxier has preferred an appeal which is pending before this

it Therefore, as they are persons interested in the tend

it ~-Wihieh is the subject matter of acquisition as Wei} as in the

amount of eompexzsafioxx. paid and payab}e, they contend that

We

they are necessary parties to the said 1efe1enc£§:…__.”~;”§eee;:).tiJ;g
their case the trial Court has aiiowed

Aggrieved by the same, the pet:itio:{1e;’rJ ie before

3. From the ‘ that L’
petitioner has claimed eXe1usive”‘i;Vtt;te the’ tsitlich is the
sub}ect matter of acquieifio11.”‘ competent Civil
Court has ‘got 8/6&3′ Shane in
the said be finally resolved
by itesggiondents were not parties
before no awaxd is passed in their

favour not :«1°’g=r’ any reference for enhancement of

» ‘ comfietxsation. ‘=–§.tV is ésettked law that a proceedings under

»S:ectio£1b: ieéaot a suit. All that is going to be deeieieé in the

ie the oompermation amanzied by the Lane

Aoq;i1isi’tio1;’v€3ficer is proper or not and if is not prvoger, What is

V tht:,§:£3rfeot market value to be paid to the owner of the 3231:1421. It

hot 21. I’€f€I'(f’:II1C€ under Section, 30 and 31 of the Act, where

dispute regarding apportionment also is to be decided by

k/.

the Civil Court.

4. In that View of the matter, when the

are not parties before the Land Acquisition _ V’

have not sought for reference, in a ::.efe1;eAfiee”‘soug3i.t’ tiie

co~oWner, they caxmot be impleaded ‘asinarty x

pmceedings. In the appeal Whieiz

the respondents can get’ ezxiem pretest their
interest even in respect of cQ1Qi1′}:ié(;n’s.*§;tion. There is no
necessity to theitu fJ:1e’17efe:fe;1ee”jpivr>ceedings. in that

View of the §i3aa3._jt’e1f,fl” by the reference Court is

Imsustainable; “Hen.ee:, ijab–3:eV”te’ee”q1:atshed. Accordingly, I
pass the

Writ is ‘The impugned order is set
respendenis for impleadfng is

disetisseéi; –.1’_I_’berty is reserved to the respondents to

pfrfczfiect fiiing appmpna” is application in the

“this Court.

Sd/~
Iudga