High Court Karnataka High Court

The Spl Lao vs Muniyappa S/O Dodda Thammaiah on 12 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Spl Lao vs Muniyappa S/O Dodda Thammaiah on 12 September, 2008
Author: V.Gopalagowda & Nagaraj
is raw men cotmr or xanxasrmm AT nmamiqgg  %  %
mran THIS TIE 12:1: my or sz«:PrEamr«;.R "2m%sF%  %

PRESENT   

TI-IE HoarBL:r:. sm.JUs'rIcE   #«%% f

THE HGIVBLE  NAGARA5

M,¥'.g N13,;  2     .
c 4! w MFA.Cr§b3:'H9.4291   ~ 

mm.1=*.A No.2-437   j 
B : 1' % % A -_ & %

THE: SP'L.LAMii's Acig{5s's.i':*:0E~:A_  % %

QFFICER   V  
ETSVESWARMAH CEI%E'iTR£:>3f' ,1 

3&9 FLOOR, POE:-I'ULM%iBLr:">C:{, "

BANC}ALt3*R;£E_.:36O mi,  %  APPELLANT

 

 

 Mmiyaivéai 

 % :53p::: D{3*i.)i3A 'I'I~£AMMAiAE~£

% " " ' 9  * 2/A .~J_YO'I'HIPURA VILLAGE

%   £2i;3mz§;iALL1 HGBLI

 ._ £%;AI\{GA;L{}RE2 sozfm TQ.

',,m_$""*~r""-«---""'~



IN M.F.A CROB. No.é29(g~E:
BETWEEIV:

MUNEYAPPA
s/r«'1:';CK,
BANGALORE 4k560 

 D.E.§FENSE R"EsEAR§f:H &

'    'EIEZVELGPMENTV EERGANISAEEON
 % _i'3A2vIE3§lD§3E_RC'%Afi
X  A ; ,.«::':Ms G.F£~"'ICE
'--,A(§ARAM;jPQST
B.aN<3AL§£v. FQR,
 SR!' H.C.SE}NI)ARESH-CGSC FQR E132}

-- THiS CROI3. $8 E*'§I..-ED U/(3.41 135.22 CEF CFC AGAERST

  J'f_3I3<3!sr[EI~3'I' & AWARD D129/3/20:33 PAS$E'D EN LAI3
 $6.158/1§§9 ON THE FTLE GP' THE H Anm. CITY {'3E'v"ii.-
  k. mega BANGALORE PAIETLY ALLQWING THE REF1_:*REz~;cE

PETYFEON .

 



'I

TEES APPEAL A/W.CROB HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUITBGMENT AND COMING ON FQR
PRONCIUNCEMENT THIS BAY, ARALI HAG4§RAJ, :1
DELNERED THE FOLLOWING:

JIIBENT

The apmiiant herein namely the Spi.I..~a.nd 

Officer, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred ff)   

for short) has filed the present  

referred to as. the "Appeal"}  conféctzfiéés  _

coxnmon judgmtint dated   ii
Addiflivii Judge,   Him as '$116
"Reference Court" fcyr §hor}z} T'i:1  and other 69

coluaccted cases   farvvzzisi if mi;-ates' "te;:r*tE1e award in LAC

No.1f38/   W119 has been ciaimant
in L.A.C.N0.15§..[ is 0136 of the said 69 cases
 ffiifi '$.*aié.__...¥.;«.vA.C.Ne.E3/98 has flied his; {3rs:;s~

Objfictiéla.  200?' Challenging the very same comma:

 '1__;t31e award in his said case seeking

. $I}i'zanc£m&:§{t'[.0f compensation awardad in respect Crf the iami

  thfi Saifi Case.

€,..S"">""""'~------A--------....



2. Sirlfifi there has "been (ieiay {:«f 1318 days  

present: cross objection, the e:rc}s§.gob}'ec£'t)r'v* ~-- fhasi '~f11e§i " = 2

I.A.N.I/O7 under Seetion 5 of tne%%4Li:;z::m:iofi

Seeking calldfinatiau of the said dgffiay. 23:3    L'

cf delay' caused in filing the  the E.iO11?h16_§'i~3upreme
C0'u1't has Gbserved at  .01' in the cam of
State of Bihar   Sing}:
reported in  as."u;'i}_.d¢r:W
"Di$fl:i'issin;;v»r;11 iefihrlical g,mL11'1ds (if
limitation éwoulci'. __i1:..g~.x1y way, advance the
interests Qi' fjustiéfi »- big: acinaitteclly, resuit in
 af "_iV1:,Vsiir;£'....';_...'"i'11c technicalitics Qf law
canfiot Lpreventxgs {mm doing substantial justice

" '.~ .   'vmidoing tt1c"'i}1?cgaIitics perpetuated on {ha
'=_ 2 . basis of v%',h€:_i'£:1pugncd jud gmcms. "

  E'oHo{iri{§g..t11és;§'.':fgb§:éi;vati0:1$ WC hoié that the appiication flied

 th-5 crfisgébbjéfitars saeidng Canéfination 0f 6:253;-1y dEi'S=€I'V6 £0

   acmpting the reasans stated therein. However,

 cfasé-txbiector eiaimam: shail not be entitiai to the

4'  i§#:g;:1*e3£ «I311 the Cififlipéfifiafiiiti ameunt far the said {Jemima 01'

 Qieiay'.

r" 



 

3. The appfiflant herein has also filed 54 other appeals

agmieved by the same common judmeflt and the 

the mspective iarzd f:i{3(1UiSfiZiOIT£ cases. The 1"'e3§§:r2'1d§iI';is .312 

501116 of the said appsais, being f:iié"-fiia.iu1a:1is:v'._iI'§ '--i,§'1E3Lf

respective iand a£':C{11.'iSiiZiOI1 Casess, u'§?1_3j.I:;<=:3 alé(',f..  fiifzsi " 

respective (:r0ss-objections seeifijig» €I1i1é!.IiC€i1}i::€I4i§}'VVi'§i' the V'

compensation awarded i1"1£l?1V<_=:i1' r§:spebtV'0f't}1e lands
acquired under the said cafiiesg 5f6". ,gpp¢als 3.11:1 the

C€}I'I't':':S'pC!I1(ii}"1g L*rQs$+Qt§ieci:i0I1S-- .~havé' 'b&4E'.§TfIiste<i togtttilfir as

"M.F.A.Nos.»24e4}z34   camncetcd appeals" along with
the C01Te$§ié€:n(:%Ming  Of the said 56 appeeais

'arid Uiltftil'  .§3:0ss~0bjections iinciutiing the

prcsezlt  an-Ci  crfiiss-ebjaction), we haw dispfistéci (if
fifiée i§'i£?fi;S**."gi12&i.._£§1é t:§ifr@spon§.i21g Cros.rs--§bj::<:i,iam ziazufiiy
M.ia-gx;k:s:¢s..2;;§4;:%2§e4, 2433/20% and 2449/2304 ihe

 cazifisfiéiléirigA-{3:*t§'§;$~€}bje(:ti0n N'0S.379/200?, 393;' 26310'? and
M5383/206'?   common judgment datéd 32.9.2908
% * --1%f§;1'A:~:s:1*itisAs:'fig said apmaifi 5:' £116 Spi.LAO and aI}im?ir1g the
' _'_'V{::2_z'19-%{é'§.=;g;»<§§fi§ii11g CFGSS-i3bj€C{i9§1S am iii1e:*eb3,«" €:'1i'12%11::i:'1g 351$

Whw£« 



market; value from  15,000/~ to  

respect 0f the iands acquired in    A 'V

under firs': two preiiminary notificatitfiinsi'-§i;§_iecf'i'%:Q3. 

13.5.1993

and from Rs.3,45,ooo,*§jm I<ES.V'8V,.si';»(}–,.9:}(_}_jf)f}"~~~:{'jj€:r":acre"'V

in respect of the landg acq1;§red,Aifl féS13€C'tive cases
under the third prelimirzarf 2.6.1995 with
afi consequential in respfict of aii

the iands.

4. ‘£’h,§: izhe c1’oss»0bjwi’.i-3:1 and
the said three ‘(grass-objections (E{}I’I’€SpO§1(Ziil}g
therfito ‘,i$§1iicE1 diswsed of by us by the 3.:-aié

__ dated 12.09.2008 35 stated supra, have

a1’isézLAfi’emv tE1k;:–..Saiifi.e C(}I}1fl1()I1 juégtrlfiilt and the I’€$[3€(3ILiV{‘i

awards passed by the samra Rfiffiffilicé Court

ifi;}§EA0g5/98 and athér 69 cafinécted cases of wifich the

” – é ‘ ‘ : ._pjré–§&if§.t» §}A.AA.C. N6. 158/ 99 is one.

” Therefare We have E26 foiiew £3133′ said Cammari

judmxant and dismiss the present apmal at’ the Sp1.L-fi;C? and

aflaw the prawn: cI*£3ss=-r3bjt:(:’i*.i(3I1 and theifibfii award in favaur

,,ws”‘2’**–~»-»–««

3

cf the cross-objector herein (claimant in L.A.C.No.158/99)
the same ameunt: of compcnsatien as awarded in

common judgment in the said appeals.

6. Since the land in the present L.A.C. _-N6.” ‘ u

been acqumed’ under the Proliminnrvi-_« .

02.6.1995 the cmss–objcctor

case) shall be entitled to .Ava1i1é*at rate of
Rs.8,40,000/ – with all thereon.

7. Hence V’ judgment
dated 12.9.2008 appeals and me
the foHowmg’

(1) kI.A.z§o..:[o?.fi1¢<:m;der Section 5 or the Limitation

Qmss-Objection is allowed and the
d¢i.*a3=. §§ 3.318 days caused in filing the same is

_ .A'.T'§:9'I1doncd subject to condition that the

A shall not be entitled to ttm i'[1f1CIV6St an the
enhanced campensation for the mid pemd of
A' '*-.__de lay.

(:1) The present M.F.A.No.2437/2004 filed p3% % j:1;e

Sp1.LAO, Bangalore, 1s hereby d1sm1sS<:<1.'V.
present Cross-Objcct1on No.-429/20(3'?j'Isv
with costs. The muss-objector, _'.hérf1;i.Ij.» W!r1_'cy K "
claimant in L.A.C.No. 153
the enhanced market va1ué’~ at 1
Rs.8,40,000 / – with ‘cons”eq1;¢ia?i;11VVAV” ‘V ‘

benefits ttlcreon. ales-s the émétmt of’campi=:nsation
which he has terms of the
impugmd_ j*ju£1g1§;_1eiit ‘ am. the respective
awa:’d:_’t1}si$;rr:€%1V by the Refer:-,-nee
m%%<L;.a.<:;No.158/99 shall be
judgrmnt. The Cross-~
onjecter % __dc~iposit the deficit Court Fee
8 fméifis date of drawing up of the

=»WH MMMMM Sd/_
FJEKEE

Sd/~
JUDGE