IN THE HIGH coum' op' KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 1213 DAY or» JUNE "
THE HON'BLE MR. JU$71'_lCEv'AV1{§;$ABfl;'i§ifr " a M
ANfi % 1 _ a &
THE HON'BLE MR.,Ju.s'r1c:E"'s;§I;4s}§1?yANARAYAivA
W.A.N0.
BETWEEN H
1 SR! slfifléiéfi J 3 t' V
AGED A3023? ms'__ ~
00:; AGRiGUL'lf'J_R~E__
2 SR]
gsio. SHAf€KARAYY'A MUKKAL
- ABOLVF
'A "!)CCA(§R!CUL'I'URE
:3. SR! SHARKARAYYA
'3 +310 snavawn MUKKAL
'--~..__AG_EE' 51 ms
AGRICULWRE
.. " * .ALI;ARE R/AT P.N..}AL!HAL VILLAGE
= %.F'»:9{Lz E N
This appeal by 5758/05
is filed against the wherein the
learned snggleg Vt:i)"'i;11tcI'feI'e with the
endorsexnefiii ' -V" fespondent mfusing to
refer 18 of the Land
Aoquisitiofi ifér. Act) as the award is mead
_ belongng to the appellants herdn
H VV . by the Iuspondents by issuing n:ot1ficatian'
17(4) of the LA Act for the purpose of
sufiifiérgmm of back waters of Upper Krishna Project
and in view of the oifcr maéc by the Land Aaoqttislflorl'
\9U?-
Omcer and which was accepted by the
consent award has been passed. " =
petitioners made an application A.
0&1" to refer the matter mtzder
before the Civil Court as been
awarded for fruit aégppiicatzion was
rcjficted by an award is
passed by the matter to
the cm er the Act does not
arise. 'the said endorsement, the
appelIanA1';'s"e. and the learned Single
Judgedof this hearing the leamed counsel for
__ °1'dcr dated 17.4.2007 following. ' the
jijmifinm-;zit_tIV1ie"Viioz1'ble Supreme Court in the ease of
d esTA19"E .()i"§fV.I{A"'I2NATAI{A AND ANOTHER ---vs- SANGAPPA
dddddddddiimvepee BIRADAR AND OTHERS reported in Am
Sc 2204 held that as the award is passed by
' " and the compensation has been emecepted,
\V>
reference under Section 13 of the Ac:~€~-- .'
maintainable and further in view of ma thej .
said question raised in the writ
the judment of the Honble L.
the learned colmsel pegiuoncrs
insisted to argue the 'Of _Rs.- has
been imposed with the
Legal sewicg.§ by the said
order, this appellants.
appearin_ 'fax; the
counsel for the appellants
the claimants had consented for
_ pas:§iz1g.--._ §;fv axvard, no compensation has been
"for fruit bmring trees and thaefore an
apfincafion was timed for reference undar Section 18 of
[ the Act. In support of his contention, he submitted that
\w
has no more ms intfl in View
the made in paragragm 14 of the
V K r;=:fc:rrod to above, wherein the Horfblc
Court has clearly held that me claimants
6
since the compensation under award was
under protest, the application for
maintainable in View of the L : &
h 15 by the Honhlié
Sangapm Dyavappa Bi1~adaVrV's' A 'V '" ' V.
5. We have to the
contentions made by for
the
6. contention of the
learned comaséi 'the appellants that the
Section 18 d' the Act is
though the award is passed by
\5.)
Therefore, the mdorsement issued
A ._the respondent-Additional Special mm
% Oflicer has been rightly uplwld by the
Single Judge and we do not find any error or
in me said amrmg, Having mm to the
having accepted the award Without any
estopped and precluded ” ‘V
appiication for reference in ternis
Act and it is also u-its that *
the right to receive wuvaya 1 or
interest etc., can u obscured ill
pl1 13 Q£’=t1;e under the
Act is P911135 01’ 051
adjudicationof owe, it is
not disput<§d§At}1:a£' by confit $141
wherefore, ":si"':;%é'a1*d is msm by consent
thfi COHIPCWKI1 filfihflfity.
“of reference undm’ Section 18 of the
\§Kjs
} . V 1 ‘~21;
illegality in the said finding. Having the
conduct of the Advocate in persisting
matter even after the decision of
Court applies in all fours to
and though it was broug,h1;..to
counsel the iearned matter
and Wherefore havitig said” éonauct, the
learned Single Judga; discretion in
do not find any
the discretion of the
learned Sfiglc cost. Acoondmgty, we
hold that the not sufier from any
gxfror ‘V this intra Court appeal.
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-5
Judge
5d/-E
Iudgé