:1: THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKKVVV ' '- " '
cmcurr BENCH AT D§fA.RW#;i3" -- if ' VV
mrrsn THIS THE 6*» DAY 125009 '1; ;
353083 V V V V V V
THE HOBPBLE MR. Jvsfiém g;.s.VVB'aVV1§A'i\IH§5.
c.1=t.:2"'raro.£iVs6§\ -- _ V
BETWEEN; "
Sri. Gunjafli - V
Agaé abmzt 68 yeszfis '
81:3, Hire: vfiggappa
Agzicnitlsfist " V; _ _
Gangavathi, Kappa}. .. '
. M PETITIONER
(83: Sri. JaymV}i'it.é1"RaQ«_ Acivocatrz)
V V ' ' «V 'ficqiiisition C}ffin:::er
*--. (As£4i§;7ta11t.Coti§:x331issioner)
Koiépal " "
*2. '§'heVVVS»:c:Vi*gtaVVryVV , Ag1'i-::u3.tur3.Z Produce
MarkcVt.CGm3sittee, Gangavathi
., Gagugavathi Taiuk, Kappa]. Distrrict
_b7'3;,_:it§; Eieczwetary
' RESPONDENTS
. _ –«V_4V{‘8’3f;’Sri, 5. N. Kuikazni, may for R4 ; Sri. at 3. Patil, ,&dv:x2ai:e far
Ems;
.i
4′
in.)
CR? FILED U/S. :15 OF (:90 AGAINST
26.03.2004 PASSED IN CIVIL MESC. 920.1/03 ON. ,’I”i’~IE’~§T’IL E§ OF’ ._
THE CIVIL JUIQGE (SR. ma}, GANGP;.’J}X’i’–HI, I’}IS§\§iS$§PéxL}._TFH’E
PETITION RLE3 [}/S. 152 R/W Sm. 1EE».§ é’.}1¥’ CZPC— sE%’a.§s:I:+:.Gé
T0 AMENB THE AWARD. * ~.
THIS PE’I’§’I’iON COMING (:~:€”‘:2%0R Vm3;A;:=2;Tr§Iv§3’V”:§§?i’1:<3".§A'y',"
THE COURT MADE THE FOL'§.,OVsf1_Z§E{}: K
"£~f§i..,.'..w….A..%'%I*'%-'15E:L;i§ %i "
The 'gtgasfion the order
dated Pfiiéfigeflafigous No. 1/2003. By
the "o1flr:;§';v". Dn), Garxgavathi has
dismissevidé tbgfi h' the petitioner herein under
Sectiexx }52 f_ CP¢ tea the judgment and award passed
in L.z*x>5$ N58/2d6:».. %%%%%
‘V2; Shri Jayavittai Rat) K0131″, learned senior
Cxzatmfiel for the pcfitionezr, Shri. D. N. Kuikafni,
~’~__ it:aI11ed”{}f§ver31m:::x:t Advacate appearing for Respondent N31
H (L S. Patil, if.Zi8.3Lf”.1’1€i{‘I Counsei appearing far Respandent
–. Nof2.
3» Having heard this respecflw: ieaxned Counsei,
gemsed the papers. The brief facts isadixig in the present 933$
1
is that the land belonging to the petifiomzr was actqg1i1″»é(iV’
bfinfifit of the 1511 Respondent. E11 resspcct _
campensation awarclad by the
inadequate: was cailcad for c1:1ha;;cen:1?:–ni”~by
under Section 18 of the Land Acfiii1?E%’£ifi.0n Aéfl [.};;1′(iI’V(éiI1Eii’?;t3I’ V
caiied as ‘the Act’ for sh5{ft’},_ fiétifiien {§%é1s}v’t%ferred {O
the Refertznce Coilrt in respect of the
compensation aw:§@.=.»d were in appea}
before the Bench of this Court
in 7.:L;’ppe5;§1 had been filed by the
benefiaifify-;§PMx’J3:.VVVfiflfififi’ Bench Vidf: its G1’d€’:r dated
19.08.2802 o:17.Vtb’11:%’~’bLVappea} with only the modificatimz
to ui:£c:€113.:::«fi;io;1 of the tievelopmental charges.
the parties were before: the Exacuting Court
axiii. \?i€?é§j }:’:f the modifications macis, the mamas of
::a1cui:ati{}”x1 skés ifiled b€’3f()I’€ the Court. Sincfi there was dispute
V’ to the slama, they were 01123:: again befmre: the
Bench sf this C_ouri:, this tma before; {hrs Eearnaé.
” Singie Judgfit in 09.? M338/2003. In th::: said petition, this
L
“.1
Colzrt Whflfi dispasing of the petition on 14.02.2(I_)§I;3;3–
213 foiiows im para 6 of the cmzlcr.
” it. is also Imedless to make an Qbservaijon ‘V ‘ H
in this order regarding the”}..5%
interest upon the awarded Compengsafiofi ‘
as proviéed under fh(§’~.pI’OViS’§(}IiS of
of Land Acquisition At*:.1;,”*} 894 is .§:c5i1c{:r1:i.£:d,
it is open for the zesp;>i;.:1ex7:V;/decreceiaoldizr
£0 file neceeiszgxy «apisficafiézx before “tha
reference co1z:rt.Vlse€:1;in§:,’x’eV§f€iv”<3f its award
and demte under' thaaforcééaié. provisions
of the Act also (sf-:)Iif€3rfiiity 'with the
decisionsf the SUNDEER
.vs,.ijuN;;G_N Q}? ii'§DIA[(?J!i}£}'E)'3'*'S{3C 211]. If
s,uc1.%._'<–.aiiv"apialication is'2 fi1V€:1 by him, the
sa_m;£1_§I;gay :¥fiC4.C(ii13i{i'6:i'ed'§ after hearing the
~~~~ -VT;;1AeTfcitio11ieI: j1:.g¥g.mcni.—-v….débto1' and pass
aypmpziafc in accordance: with law.'
45. ‘Ps3.:Es’ua.;1i_ t:()~.V_1~:fm?.”‘b:’}1b0ve ordsgr, rim petitizmer fzieé the
.§:*ss:;§§§i. b§ILi:sc¢}},anA£é'()us.=…?etitio:1 under Seciian 152 r/W Section
1E”5.3 bf +:~:;€’:vc::I::<';i..*«':g {Gr amandment of the judgment and award
gmsséé inv 200}. While dismissing the petiiii-on, the
Rfif!f3E'Eu1Zi';)é' Céurt was of the Vi€W that it does not harm
V' §:1ii$éi§:ti<;3:1 to do so since the jufigment and award passed has
in the proceedings befere ihe High (hurt. Sacondly, it
"i5éfifis £1616: that {ha petition was not maintainabie since the Saree
was 1739!; it}. the natuxt 0f mview and the amendment sought for
i
'''c
is 30$ 3 clezica} mistake to be COI'I"'tE:C§{':£i I:;.fiséd" iihié
applfication filed undar Section 1552 of QPC.
5. While assailing the éfl§:§§ted*.
Reference: Conn, the lcarned’«v__$’£::1iorVhfiounsél iizaé placedV
reiiance on the _}’1i§g1I1E31}t,..{;Ef Dis{i.*3i{“,;:i”L_:B{éi*zr:.}; of C»b;urt in the
Case of SHIVAPPA — vs. THE LAND
ACQUISI’1’iON O§?E’§{__’§ER A;zxr;:3%L;: éomzsarssiomaa,
KOP?AL Aim {?;Q§;4(3;–..'”; fiivision Bench of this
Ccmrt .. cf ” merger and the nature of
considerafiloisz in suéh é;5§pve¢i;.
P21r£hc§fi’ ‘icamed senior Counsel has also reliitd
Kan wipe ‘j;1eEvg:&é,ntQ:’of.this Court in the c:a$€ 0f ERAPPA Va SFATE
Tactic}; Sé:é;¢.:*A:, LAND Acquzsmon OFFKZER, {EPPER
4 ‘§{ia*1sHM”RR’0JEcr, AURAD, GULBARGA [)iS”I’R£CfT’ {1997(2)
to: contend with tagazti tn the power of tha Court
make Iiecassary carrasctions even under Sectgiea 151 cf CFC
“”.i§éi£r0iei fa.i1z1.1ie: of jusfice. T113 Iearneé senior Counsel has alga
‘ placed rt:}:E.,a11ce an the judgmani to contfind that mere filing 0?
J!
‘T
petition under difiemnt provision Wonk} not take: away tbs right.
af the Court to corxtct the mistake. The refemncc is {.1139 made
to the judgment in the case 0f KOTUR
KARNATAKA Houszm BOARD (rm 2008 KAR
bcnafits wart: péxmittfld if}. an appficafiog u11<fZéf'Séj.. "
With regard is the right for
Counsel has placed reliancs an-4…:1;e {iecision fig-zise of V *
summiz vs. UNION 012' INDIA (AIf§"'i?f)G} sC'35j§5 j. V:
"F. The learned f£'o,:~ fr-.;s}1;:s;nde:1t haztswfiver,
soughi m.;;c1 fVii;.i _«i;:x:»;1%:its5*2_.1"i IL-iy placing reliancts on the Very
same judggacfit 1m1§é""s§w£1VA?9A MALL-APPA JIGALUR
V (supsrggj 't:3L.::911§:€'z';<?§V_ t11:at vihs {iocirinc sf merger wauid agpiy in
c%§,s:_, While: the iearrmd Gevt. Advecate has placed
.§Vu.§igment of flue Hon'¥::1e Supreme Court in the
' ease-ai G;A§~:1j'£PRAsAm Am OTHERS vs. JAYAPRASAD AND
"'*–__'§3';jHTERS-g;§;1R 2094 SAR CIVIL 9:3). Rerliance is .3130 piaccd in
:f'£3..¢'–c9;:§a: 0f GURPREEE' 3:943}; vs. USEGN SF gzxzsm {AIR
i$§);f36(2) mac 59.1}? J
~J
8. Having noticed the said contentions, what has to
be considered at the eutset is with rsgard to tha dociifine of
merger, which has been put forth While
applicavlcm and as ta Whether in the % V’
present case the same weuid be : é1»fA3HpbIi(:;a_b’;1¢. -1′
learned Govt. Advocate had placed miigaficfian
the I~io1z’b}.cz Slzprttma Court 12ofic=t;;i”~supfa,— .1it’iS_ se«£%:3V’Vf}i2§t théw
Divisicn Bench juégment the cé£Sé”ofSHIVAPPA
MALLAP?A u¥I(?rALUR is quité ‘c;E§n§;ia:_¢:§ng all aspects
where :b:*;§?§1;; p}«$_£:éd’V’cn the View summatized
by the H (3-1:;’¥:::1e ‘ v(§6’;1%t;:…re1ating to Booking caf margin”.
B€tf()i”€ acivfitin g £;~:1f:}.:.;eATp1*:e:~*;z:*;1i1t facts cf the case, what requires
, 13;; gs tki§;it’ix:…t§1e: said decisimz, the illivisien Bench of
‘C41u1’tV’I3a§s<vA.e§§itracted the reievaflt porfion of the judgment cf
BOL':.'§)}%3 Court which has bean ffiffiflfid by the
'Vfiivisieaizfi Tha said conciusion would indicate that fiifi
' sf merger is not a éocfrinc af imiversai er the
apylicatien which wifi depend an the naturc cf the
"–«:ij€:ii$dicti0I: €X€?.'(2iS-fid by the Sumrior Forum and the centent
' x or subject matttr of Cthaiienge laid or capable of baing laid 31131}
J
"5
be detmminative of the appiicability or merger. 'I'Ir11.ié:"'» e',a5e.it;1
<.:<)3:13V::1″<3 c.'fi§§fi gé in award but Calctliatioau
thereto i:L1a€1t:– Court '§'hV<}i'i:Vfication of the judgment and when the
€}IIlf3I1('{}.'k1€I;i1«:t éf fixtigzaatznt and éeczte was sought, the matter
ha??? been vicarwed difihrtnfiy,
9, Hawever, in the instant case, as already Ixoiiccd
.. «ivhile uaxrating the brief facts of the case, the parties were 02:02:
again before: the 1ea.z*r2.:”538[ 2003. This relevant
order made in the said revigion pefition,
petitio::1 on 14.03.2003 has already tfieefiiéxtzégted’
above. in the said por’£io1i1,, $31613″-.iS”‘..Sp6Cififi.f3fii)$€I’\l’?3fi01i”g
permitting liberty in the r€:sg5»i3:ii:isvnt/ decI_;¢é~T,t;§olc§i;rVV Wthere3′;1V
namely, the petitioner iimjzfiin VV%i13;1§r}ica«1:’iV(5i’1 “i:§efore the
Reference Court seekixng decme under
the provisions the u and also in
canfcrmity wr;1::i1 sfizpreme Court in SUNDER
vs. there is a diI’ffC1ii{)I1 1:0
consider $–11V(::h said dimction would indicate
that this_v{3Q1.i’:*i cfiiasééious of the fact of earlier litigation
paAr{ies;Vb’efor€ the Court hefare {Division Bench and
z:_§;-azicing. fizzéi, .,7pu§*s1;ant therein the execution petition haé been
}e:vi E:d é3 nc1 proceedings the parties were before: it, had
_ 44 égsueci €115 specific direction to appmach. the Reference Co1;1r1E.
I Tfiizsreiiam, considezing the said i£iitE:i’V€I2ing circumstance in the
__”‘ §}I’$V§’3fiI1t case, thfi doctrine of merger as ixzdicatsd by Hoxfble
*D’1;’L’\i”.:iSi(I)3fi Bench of this Court Wouid have ‘£9 he naticed and
more partictzlarly, whezx 13.1 the instant case ‘Eh: pefifianer is the
J7
“‘r
ii}
owner seeking fer certain statutory benefits which amvetreifaahle
to him unéer the Act, were particularly when
permitted the liberty by xaaoticing the 3
SUNDER’s case (supra).
10. Therefore, in the pxtesexzt cam’: am oi”th.e4_view;e tliat ” L.
the Reference Court was I}Gt’v’4′>”jjV£’i$tifi€d” the
appiicaiion by invoking’ “mergerH geld in the
present facts and eizcuiestareeee the ‘Was open for the
Reference Ceurt2_’te”§;1:eé1ke if the land loser ._
;3e¥:itione}:i_we.s e1Vitit§er1:’*£3_’fl3e”v:efiei’ sought. for by relying on the
SUNDEFFS ‘c’as5ee(su1pr2;).f _ J
‘F};1e ee$:tv’~~ae*pect cf the matter Whicrirl arises for
“m1see:ae§::eigmm regard to {he rejeciien of the application
on the same had been filed under Seetien 152
_ (ZIP(3. ..Ifa.’§h$s regard, is: is net necessary ten eiziecese the matter
Siiifjfl the {ieeisien in the ease ef ERAPPA (supra),
see by the Eearned seejer fiezmsel weuid squarely aeply to
*.th€i’: preeeni facts of the case, since the said decision was
renéered by the learfleei Single Judge ef thifi Court While
J
P’.
1?;
Ccnurt: has erred in the matter. This View is farrtified by the
dercisian in the ease of GANGA BOW vs. SHANK’A_R..4:’SEVA
SAMITHI (R), ‘£’UMKUR 3996(1) KAR L.J.238].
112. Therefom, 3 am of the Vview that” ¥¥f:§f(‘i’:j5:12.;cut:””
Cmlrt Wouid have to restore the Civfi M130. A. 33e tit;i.;01iV”?~I’G:V1:'{_§}?:a:1Vt{)
its file and consider the case 02:1 its mefigs’. W}fi1€’._;w:afimg that >
there shouid be reconsiderafion Vtht; Réibzfifiée Qoufi with
regard in tha peiitifin Es f;b.<é decision ciied by
the iemned Govt. A1§.:;§voc:a1;¢._Vi:;–.VtE.i¥¢ {:as;é~,§'f~1'.é:;~I;"RPRE}3'r smea
(supra) Zflis iastizftaci it made dear that whiie the
Rcfereuca :*é£,*<3§§i$ic1a$if*::.%V 4t4;'§:1¢:% matter, it Shall keep in View
_ 13:16 eiififsisiolz ef t11*f:_V_ FI s3::'£~le Suyreme Court both in S{§NDER's
(@153 SXNGWS case and ihamafter cansidar the
péziitiijrn 0:d'i"i::$ ii;1&-,-'t'i."»:$ and aroma $0 the cencizmian one way or
V _ the Other atzitozfiamce with law.
n I «-3.3, {m that aspect 0f the matter, the contentiaas 6f the
aye kept {span in be nrgéci before the Reference Ceurt’
‘”= fi2 th& light of 1:113 abeve, the order dated 26.G:3£2()O4 1% set
asitie. The pctitien in (ff-ixfi §\’IiSQ£333.8I}€fO1l$ 1/ 2693 is restored 1:0
“‘4
the file of the Civii Judge (Sr. D21) at
and dispose of the same in acooltiance with law;’ = .1: ‘ .
14. Since the pazties are I€pI’tE’: fs¢fi:i!3’d.’
learned counsel, may shall Egeféfs
as the first date Of afipfialanca gar} “Th€:::eafter the
refererncé Court shaii and dispose of
the petition as crxjp-.c:r1V;.itio13V,-:’;’l3;»*”..*ez$_*~:: fzot Later than 4
months from tiifi capy of this order
is produced béfc;;%§– 33¢
“;}§:{itM;i§x3,:}s$ands dismsed sf. N9 order as
to casts. a M ‘
sal-
Judge
. . .- ‘
iiéé V