_ 1. Smt._i.\/'Ii1n.irathriartiii1a,
" ' D / 1Elt€:"-- G.Mxuniyap'p2'1§
A "ii: 'AA11;dr'e majors, residing at No. 13/ 1,
MFA 4149/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT "
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUsjr_. V' dd ' 1"
BEFORE V _
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1o'E_.. , "
BETWEEN: A. d A'
G.Siddappa, :
S/o late Gullappa, '
Age: Major, V V
R/at Door No.168, 4:'§?~1v!airiARo;a"d, _V
Byatarayanap1~¢a;" V V '
Yelahankar ._
BangalorevblorthdEfaliiizg. APPELLANT
{By Sri S.$;Gutta£.. i
AND:
2; " "
'l3/'c.__l_ate'' G'7~1\/iuriiiyappa,
Smf';--J,a1:éhn1'dmma.
' .__D /0 late "C'x.1\/Euniyappa,
_ Eli"? G Street, Jogupalya,
' Ufisoor, Banga1ore--O8.
Smt.Rathnamm.a,
D / o late G.1\/Iuniyappa,
Major,
Residing at Byatarayanapura.
Near Vinayaka Vidhya Kendra.
Yelahankar Hobli. Bangalore North Taluk.
1. H appeal is to the judgment and award
ll~..__4dated passed by the learned 11 Add}. City Civil
'4'1'jujd§,e,i'Beega1ore City, in LAC No.28/1997.
the said judgment, the court below has answered the
V it reference made under Sections 30 & 31 of the Land Acquisition
MFA 4 l49/2003
5. Shri B.M.Rajanna,
S/ o iate G.i\/Iuniyappa,
Major,
Residing at Byatarayanapura.
Yelahankar Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
6. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Vishwashwaraiah Tower,
Podium Block,
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi, V '~ ~~
Bangalore.
(M/s.My1araiah Assts. Advs. lfor;
Sri Sangamesh G.Pati1. HCG1_?_fo:_K6_. so
Notice to R1 to R4_Ir:161__d sui'fici'ea1;} _
This MFA '1sf-flied' under' 'Section' 54(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, flagainst ,th.e ._ judgment and order dated
l8.l.2003,~passed iriiI::,E;AC..No.28y'~1.997 on the file of the II
Addl.City Civil Judge, E3angaiore._ ordering that the respondents
1 to 5 are entitled to' share Vequally the said deposited amount of
Rs.2/12,808; 75' together.'withinterest.
is appe'al._:vcoming'-on for Hearing, this day, the Court
made f°11°Wing:" aaaaa .. .
JUDGMENT
Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, holding that
claimant Nos.1 to 5 therein -~ respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein were
A»
Vf_isl”s*uep 2E”raisVed&_ by thelllileference Court which reads as under:
MFA 4 :49/2003
3
entitled to share equally the amount of
deposited towards acquisition of 2 acres 35 .
comprised in Sy. No.80/1 of
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Talltik,
that he also had a share in the acquiredliand and he 9
had raised objection before the (lifficer for
disbursing the amount, his claim, the
Land Acquisition Officer by claimant
Nos.l to 5, as tin’: passed the
impugned that claimant Nos.l to
5 were in the compensation
amount for ‘tlie” ” ‘ 4’
3. Learned u.CouAnsel appearing for the appellant refers to
V”ncin–reference of the name of said
G.Sid_d}appa S/0 Gullappa as one of the
contending claimants has any adverse effect, for
.. ,c_.ontinuity of the present proceedings?”
.Heluf–‘p1rther contends that this issue is answered in the negative
“-.ho’lding that G.Siddappa S/o Gullappa — the appellant herein
divas totally an unconcerned person to the acquired land and
‘finder such circumstances non-reference of the name of
p 7, The Whole grievance of the appellant is that the findings
recorded’ on issue No.2 have adverse effect on his right and
‘-therefore he is entitled to challenge this judgment. His next
MFA 4 149/2003
5
4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent–Land Acquisition Officer submits that no
passed in favour of the appellant and he has _
challenge the judgment and award passed
Court by filing this appeal.
5. Respondent Nos.1 tliougfi ~ have remained
absent. Counsel for Vrespondent.Nol._5 not
6. Having heard for the appellant and
the leamed..GoVernment_Adirocate;–~the.~l:)nly point that arises for
consideration: is, . V
“whether__’ ‘is entitled for an order
perrnittingl itinito file this appeal to prosecute the
whether’ Court can interfere with the
‘ award passed by the Reference Court
. ‘tmhe of the appellant?
‘contention is that though he had made a claim seeking
compensation in respect of 36 guntas of the acquired land
‘%hich had fallen to the share of his father in the registered
MFA 4149/2003
appeal will not affect the right of the appellant, if
raised objections and had claimed right in respeci;~._(:)f K V’
of compensation. He is at liberty benforee .;thAa’t’«
accordance with law.
10. Subject to the above obserxiatiscizsi the 3.:’}iK}”f).’1iCEiiU’0fl filed
seeking permission to’ the “app.e’a1_ is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal ~ , Sd/_..
is REDQE