IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANcua;L:3§2u::...'__jj A'
mmn THIS THE 3 13'? DAY 09' (_)(3T()I3_'¥T;'..,I;?V_A4_::.5*{)u(}'z'_§}.::' ._ 3
BEFORE
Tm HON'BL-E: MR. JLTSTHQE s['A,_B DuL r~;A:a.I.é.ER
Wm' PETITION No.8i'0e5I9oo6 (LA-R:-;s2
BETWEEN:
Karaataka Neeravafi Nigam-T~Li111itéé
Coffee: Boarc Bufiding =
Dr.B.R. Ambcc?.}§£niV V-?{?1.'1§€_¥.i 3; ..
Bangalore-0.1..v ._ . I V V
Rep. by its V' V. "
£_':,£'$, l~'rakas.i:1~. ;: .. "
Hi}'I'i'I'1f,)N1i}R
(By . %
AND :
1. ,, Chénd.i'§mm::a
- 'Wife. DavaIappia'"
Ma3P0.1"--. =
~ 'A Ti " V R10, Chincholi Tq,
" {}is:£;'_~vfC3r_:13}}a1*ga
V VV _ 22. Tlsaé Land Acquisition Oificcr
M 8:; M.I.P., Gulbarga RESPONDENTS
A ‘5]'(By’ Sri. 3. Ma119ha:”,AGA,f9r R-2
-‘R-1 served}
This Writ P:-fifion is filed under Articles 2126 -53: ‘2’.’?fZ_r.3f ‘
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the..it:_1pugn¢d._
judgmttnt anti order dt.31.O1.200i3£ in L.—‘xC No.8é:39] <$n_ .
the file of the Prl. (Jivii gJ1_1r:£gr:. (Sr, I)11,;:, (ittlbargjgi i?31tnd–..at f
Annc:*:xurr::–A and ate.
This Writ Pefifion cromiilg _Hea_At’i:1g
Court made the following:
gmnn _
In this case, the petitifi$::§;4 file validity
of the judgme:1t in LAC
N<3.869{'3OO1 qa' :f3_1__r; gs:-. 52:1,),
Gulbarga, xvherébfvh' ~'Cm-:§§p;«§:§éa%.%on.':§payablc to the 1"
mspondenii»._Afo;* "Elf: "lands in question has
been E:n11a11ce€i ._b}'_5G?f'é 'fire: hand above the market value
by giflcqtzisition 05:35:' in his award
"alQ:1g with other statutory benefits.
is a cempany inmrporated under
""V'%he p3A:v.:;{isi<.}.z1:=: 'Q:f the Cemyanies Act, 1956. It is an
X
undertaking of the Government of Kaxnataka and it_.._§s'
engaged in the hnplementafion of the irrigatien pmjecfs." A'
3. The State Gmvemment had acquired the__1:ei1d»s_’ _
question belonging to the elaignant/1*’ respondez1i:j’:e1§<i~?.:j:he
2'1"! Iespondent had passed an awazd f
the award notice uf-s.12(2) of the _LanciV"Aeq13isi:ice:: (fef;
short 'the hot? was served on
The 15* respondent cs11'1997
u] S. 181: 1) of the Act seeking
reference of the 253 respondent
did not refer tekthe said appitication.
013. the sent reference to the
Civil cou§¥:,efi.eeivi1 Court on the basis of
the reference Lmade.b3? the V’;E’;*1Vd respondent has passed the
. Ceunsel for the petitioner would COI}t€}].d
met. a beneficiary of the acquired lands and
2
KR’;
it has to gay the enhanced amount pursuant tcg’ “*tl;1e
impugned award and it is thus an afl”ected party. ~ V.
it is argued that the reference made by the i.2″‘f”‘?’¢3}’0Ii§éi1iv–“‘.:T
is beyond time. Thezefoze, the Ieffefenee tie-‘
rejected on this ground alone. V
5. Though the 1,–“_Iespo11<ieif1t'i;~3_serveti;–.sI;e is not
represented in this case. " 'A
6. I l:;}é2i?e;}:’ie2I1’c:i–. Ieerfied.”C:ezi§3,se.I..§or the parties.
‘?’_._. V91;-..jfeeeIfi’-eleafly establishes that the
peflfieeger is a “of ‘ihe lands in question. The
peeltiener wage get’ before the reference court in
the epgfgécgcaedingés VLAC N086?/2001. It is also evident
{11atvL”the.”‘ e,jwej1i_1vae passed on 1′?’.{}’.2.199′?’ and the award
1i:Qti%:e.Tix%a§”_ies’eeti”1.1/s, 12(2) enfthe Act on the 1st respondent
an and the 15* respondent has filed an
;e’a;}pecaeo:1 u/s..1e{1) of the Act on 03.94.1993 The 2nd
.’ :f”!v’5VS}jf,««.’3~§;”‘tdt”:fI},1: has not sent the reference within 90 days freeze
the date of the said application. It is also evident ~
has sent the reference to the civil Court on 3.
after a passage: of 4 yerars from the jtiéitis” of
3.1/318(1) of the Act. £1; is net the case
she had made an application 11/ s.V of
reference. Therefore, …mfe:e11Lé ‘ ‘ ‘ the-‘ V3 2’15
resyondent is clearly barred 4′ V’ ‘
8. In the and it is
accozfiingly passed in LAC
No.8f:39/ 200 ‘3:»i1;:}z . ‘ by’ the cm: Judge (Sr.
3311.), Ci-uIi3.V’.;ir_ga1* ~i..:s;}1t’j:’zar$b3;* quashed. However,
this order wfllfiqf §:;._{h¢:..’way of the. ciaimant making
_;;-:11′ app1i駧on 12/ 3:16 Act seeking snhancamemt of
fix?» ?fGt;1§sf;I1S.afia;§i1.__Wit1xin the period prescribed in
accoldaixce Wiih-_}a;1:?§’ N0 costs.
Sd/1%.
Iudqe
(2-:3′ V’