_C»0urf_.: 'V
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGEMEEQT ANS QECREE
BATED 3C*,£36.'2{}O4 PASSED {N OS.}C~§Q.280/2001 '[92? THE
FILE OF THE II ADDLLEIVIL JUIJGE (SR.I)N,} CH{TZ€Af}§,?VEi'€3A,
THIS RSA COMING ON FGR HEARINGV '--m-',7;:I%:':TIS.:«§':;'2'§':{',:".If'1'~§}3"3
C-UURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T
J U n G M i A
This seccnd appea} f1l.r:i:1-
No.280/2001 on the rag _A%c:¥§i1 (Sr. B11),
Chitradurga, is directe was
accepted as highfist bid. Upon the piaintifl' file
entim bid azmbunt of Rs.94,00{)/- sale: deed was
his favaur conveying the said sitebeafi1:,g 'N_0.-:8'2,:_"anVd h€: was L
placed in possession of the same@--.. Su}:)s;:':éA'1i';1<~iI1*€;i:;?,"'%t§;:=:
plaintiff after obiahfing 11ecess'%et$;:jV;}j"1i(;e§:1(i{~:~.V;91;§f1ci7 fmm thé
Municipafity construCi§':1.é_ a However,
soma time during '£0 have re-
surveyed the figrs area capabla cf
beirig fiféfifem side af site No.82
and the}; tried to aucticm. the same.
(311 accouifi { )f%{:1"ii:~: part Gf the appeliant, the sits
of the;pia;:ift1t.iff I0.$f*t:'h€ be:1efit sf comer site. Therefore, the
péiititm before this Ciéjurt in W19.
__ vtfiieéking a éiraction '£0 the Zxihmicipaiity.
.§~«I0we§é'ar;t.E1t:"'V said; writ petition came in be dismissasd an
H 'A Thereaftar, {ha pl3.i11tiff fiisd ihe pragsfit Sui: in
1290}. seeking a mafidatary ifljuflifiififl ta 513::
"~}$éiiniCipa}ity :13': 'to farm fifjiff Siie an the 'éfastarn Siéfi G?'
p1:*c}p€r'£§,~* purshasaé 'fly him in 'aha pzmiic a'€,£Ct§_0E"i 0;" 2:1 {ha
4
aiternative, not to 3110: the same its any one Wifiioufi. public
auction and also for damages of R$.63,G00/-- with igztérest.
T}::us3 suit was contested by the appeilantf def€I1d :a}ffl.f{_j.'~._fvE'h€
trial Court dismissed the suit on the
plaintiff has faiiad to prove that thssite .
was a corner site, themfere, ha is I110':- ;¥::itit1é€i_v":A'c:;if °5:3f1e
reiiefss sought in the plaint. Ag§f§:=:ved 'i:yfi_ ih.§:'j'i;:dg'fen1e1'fi
and decree, the plaintiff ,.,if..1ed a,§;p$;%;fl. ii;-.R.A. of 2884.
3) The Lower .?e--a$ses$mem; of
oral and dacumetitary (§iziéc¢:'fice€ "$ <:::__aSic1c' {I16 juégement cf
thce €3'iaiV '{§o114:t' 31¢ suit 0f the plaintiff in part
graxzting "Gf."-~i2$.35,0{)<}/ - with iI1'§1€f'€S§; at 9%
"V.§}.'a. f§{sr1;3.Vv7G8. 'I99E.»....t;i}1 paymétni. The Lmvar Appeiiate
~ajs:}:_'<$i;*eg¢i=5:d iihfi apgzallant-Munigipaiiiy ts dispose of
sité' ix}. pubiic auction. ag per ruies. Being
é:.gg*ie¥edib..§* vthe saici juégement arid dacrae, tbs app€}1am~
fiiizrfiéigéaiity has presantefi tinis afipaeai.
4) {)1} 14.11.2008 While afimitting the appaaig this
" framed the faliewiizzg substantial question 0%' law,
&/.
"Whether the Lower Appellate (3013r$:.V.-was
justified in reversing the judgement of the.
Court and awarding compensation. .
respondent an the face of the order pasV_$e§' ;§1eV'
(:GuI*tiz1W.P. N0,13G32/99″g'”m t ‘ A
5) i have heard 3:1,: 3. Meaeesn, ¢:;1:mg;e
appeeréng fer the appeiiam fee-gfieiidefit/plainfiif,
who appeared in §ersc:e:1 _”:Ifte-i; S5–*3:3T§?iéZ§3»_T§§ notice of appeal 2
have peruseci the rec0rds..3e_c–ur’e.d Vfreiiz. Cfietxrts below.
6) Ti1e:*’¢;:..Vis”‘7i..;G{‘dj}S15L1£€_€hat’t}1e plainfifl” was the
successf?g;1e’bi:i§ie1′ ii*;{:,;1’;es”§;eet oféTsi1″;e beari3:1g No.82 Ixiaeasuring
4{‘¥’x60’ ‘ nu;§:ic:j euet.iez1 held by the
appeileultj3fi1;L<3icipe£it§*'~V_ef;' ":12.{i6. 1996. Aeeeptfmg highest
" 'bid and "zipen deposit"; of the ez1t:ire bid
Vaiffiexiirit, ».¥vI1,§r;§eipa1ity executezi saie deed in favour ef
' VV the p}eEi:1tii§ of the said site and else placeé him in
i'370SS6SSit".;I}; {)f the same. Subsequently, the piaintifi" has put-
V' eexxettuetierl thereon. There is also no serieus dispute
. this site bearing 930,82 was putnzp fez' public auctien
+m (ma? 4
VA “–«en the premise that it was a gamer site having roads are ~g,,.,,
e
West and South. It is the specific case ef the piaiziiifi’ thes:
he offered higher price to the said siie only bece.~:1S_e».i};’ ‘iaiiegziea
comer site as aec<:)::'ding to him, the $i"i:es" of
same measurement have been seld Tat 3
Rs.38,{}(}()/-. It is the further .4__speeif1e' " easeV»'efV..t}}e
that on aceeunt of the site to
the 'West of site No.82,' all advantage
of a earner site and he well as usage of
mad 1§;'mg of this, the
value of he is entitled
to be the appeflant-Muiiieipality.
I3″; is 3:10: in sre:’§;0uS”:iiS’;§ute”f;}iat subsequent to auction of site
_VNo.82,_%f&iheA.Munieii§eiityiformed another site bearing No.82-«A
‘~€:<:a'.' t}i3e:'?J;eetA €2f"Si__Ee $0.82. On aeeeuni ef this, the preperty
ee}dAV&ii7z'faT€zei1: {he glainfiff' lost a}: me eheraetezietiee ef a
-c:e:*1″;e§” site’, E5 the light cf the substantiai qzzeetien of 13552
V’ by this Ceuri, What is required to be seen is, in View
A’£§1e’Aerder ef this Ccmrt in the aforesaifi ‘£¥’i”§§’ petition,
V “‘*é§?§e§:her the 13”: respondent] plaintii? had :10 right :9 seek
damages’ A eoey of ercier in the writ petition has been
&/
nxafiezed as EXP4. As (101116 be seen frem thfi $a:i£i,T0r{i€;:
passed, this Caurt after referring ‘:0 {ha e::o11t.a:=,t3i:at_iQ:’:1:_s1L:4i:»f ‘the
writ petitioner rzamely, the plaintifi _})¢f:3.,i:1′ T’ fitzgé
1
respondent namely, Mzuficipafiayg ‘g03E;f1’g, _ £316
merit of H16 case amd withglgj:
mereiy disposed of the cf the
submissions made %CO®Sg; {gr mg
respondent thfiffiifl. by the learned
counssi for that during rfi-
survey, iheré gxxeasurememt of several
sites aszaiiable next the site $39.82,
t.}:’:ar¢fore, ‘t}15ai%Vs§£€-bé:r:Vani€3.LVt}ie comer site, as such, it has to
V be difsgxdsed cf *i;},;’,_V_ a};1(:¥:i:e33*1 and the petitioner is at iibertfi is
p}a§:”eicipa{.:§_ igififiie auctisn and ggurchase the same. ‘f’§¥1is
C€;:.1f*:.,.Wfii§£%_”d_is§§t§Véing 0f the Wadi petition did :19: restrict 3.11};
V pf of thfi piagéztttiff nor this Court issueé am;
“§§iri¢cij.;§:r;. By merely noticing the submissiuflg made by the
K counsai for the I”6Sj§3OI’1d€I1t th$re:¥I1 that the
” g£péiiti0:1€:r Théffiifi is at liberty to participate in the auction 61’
nawly formed Cf.}I”‘I”1€:I’ site [Site §\*f0.82–~A), the writ petitisn has
been dispc:-$ed of. May be that in the subseq”L1ent grublic
auctiofl in respect sf site No.82–A, the plaintifi’
participate nor offered any bid. That does 4_
right to seek damages or ” “3:hE:’ ; z
Mumclpafity for its act in Lhfi:
advantage of site N382, Aa”:..;;§;jii’1éj:r si’a£3′.
The appeliaxzi by its c’a;ri1’1’«:;tVA-:’1§<=:pI1've the
advantages attached 1.:e' "Sti_'_t€: declared at the
time of 3. corner Siiti.
Having made: price to that siie, on
the _ 205%? site, subsmuelitiy’, the
Municipefitj ‘%:;§,,;* cam}-at converé the earner
site int-3 an ‘:m;e1’*;€i:eciV*ia1*;? site by forming another 31%.
.’F£1r:?:1fv£éf”:_;1:'<E§'~,5'L :'Lh%:A~}50we1;2£fipel1ate Caurt was justified in holding
is iiable t0 pay damages to
fthe pZmintjfi' cfii account 9f the action by the Municipaiity in
H 4.4"€=.V§*ian§ng""t}1e nature ef site N082 fi'{3II£'1 comer site to an
'igétélfinédiaxy sites The ordar passed by this Ceurt in writ
VT : *p:':£i'f;ica:1 K9. E3032/989 has 330 Effect 01"; the right of tha
&/
piajiatiif, as this Court has not decided the: rights Q€__aI2jsr' 0f
the parties in the said Wrfi: petition.
7) when the Iviunicipality
disputed that Site No.82 was 3. c0i*_{:1c:r:.s_i:3t§t: ;_’£hC{>jt_;1*t gwgéks
dismissing the suit only’ on has
not proved that site The said errar
Committed by the-tfial corrected by
the Lower of the matter, the
judge;1;.cj:if:”Ejf does not suffer from
any :’wa.:{1″ar1fir1g intezrference by tins
Court. _Thém:v’€:r – Appéliate Court having regard K: the
V’€:vid€if1£i€5»–o§1 §fir’:gc0:fi«fiié;s5Vdir€Cted the appeilamj 15? éefendanf.
fin. Vc:jfi;§€:§:safion 0f Rs.35,00G/ » with i,11tereSt at 9% p.3..
frc:-1:1: till the date of payment. Though the
” ‘–..if€:spQndén£/ piaizjztifi’ contends that the Lower Apgefiate
has omitted to take irate mnsideraiion the evidence cm
promrly While ayriving at me quaiitum of damagtig,
” “ii: is necessary is; new tha: the pfiaintifi’ has neither filed an
&/
1%
appeal Iii}? crass-objection to this appeal fiaying
necessmy Court fee seakirzg enhancement 0:” Gf
damages. In this View of the matter, them issf: ti: 4_
enhance the damages aWardedv.<by»—-?he~'_: .;§x;4}peI1atue'j'
Court. Direction issuad by the ?:<:§:'i;.?1;e
appeflant to dispose of sit.é sjpubiic»
auction is also justfiéedz'; it "'0'11"";;ec0rc% that
subsequently site Nc;.8fé-A..'§1£i$ of in public
auction. Themiififfg, has aiready been
complied Wiffi. ,'.:1;Iié:,§Inat£er, 3 see no merit in
this question of law fI'€;¥E1'it*{i
is 8I}S1¥€f6:G..V_i§1
pvf tljié 'a-;L¥.3ve, the apmal is disiiaissefi with: cost
i§mfighm§;f ;
Sd/-
JUDGE
“.f§GR*