IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST__,'2i:)M.{')'9:"'V~' ~
PRESENT DA-_
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N} KUMA_R.:
AND A ,,
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B_1SiREEN1vASESOO*.}vDA
Writ Petition N5. '4S4N9OdRAA¢f é:o?t3j2.t:K:,R)
Between:
NORTHWEST«KARNATAKA'= ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORA'Ia'_ION "'
REPRESENTED BY D_
MANAGING DI,RECTO_R ' "
GOKUL ROAD _
HUBLI. A ..PE'1'ITIONER
(By ADVOCATE)
_ ASST'STAN'T 'COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND
V.ACQUfSITION OFFICER,
" M ' ' .,DHARwAD DIVISION, DHARWAD.
TUKARAMSA TULJANSA JITURI
V _W"0R, E/O.
R/O DAJIBANPETH,
MARPANAHALLI ROAD, HUBLI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
2(a) SMT AMBUBA1
W/O.LATE T.T.JITURI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O. DAJIBANPETH,
MARAPPANAHALLI ROAD, _
HUBL1 - 580024 * A
203) SURESH
s/o.LATE T.T.J1TUR1,j>._ % _
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARCX. " '
R/0. DAJIBANPETH, '- f
MARAPPANAHALLI RQ'A'D"-it A
HUBLI--580
2(c) JAYAC.HAND"7._--. , G ~
S /O. LATE T.T.J;."w1"G,_ '- _
AGED AEQUT 43 YEAR'S_
R/O. DAJIEANPETH3_'
MAILAPPANAHALLI' ROAD
- HUBLI'; $80 024" AAAAA .. ~
3. ESHRISHAILAPPA ISHWARAPPA MIRJI
A E1MAJQ'R,'[«E. _ "
OCC': SERVICE,
R/O««._DA.JIBA'NPETH,
IHUEL1.
,: '2..'T*TH'L."---..TAVHSILDAR
_ ' HUBL1,
DHARWAD DISTRICT .. RESPONDENTS
T/A
(By Sri K.B.ADHYAPAK, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR-.R–1
AND R-2, SR1 F’.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2(a) to Rzxe}-;.._SRI
ANDANIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) j » . , 1′ ..
This writ petition is filed under Articles _
the Constitution of India praying to.»quashjithe”‘d1’der._iVid-e
AnneXure–C dt. 11.07.1986 on I.A.No.VII_inj, 1V1tFAAN_de17to2VttAdf
1977 and 574 of 1978 Vide Annexure–DVa.i1._d”etC{‘– –.
This petition Coming on fOr–..1dearing 1\?;K1dmari”i
J ., delivered the following: _
9.._RI>Eted A
Learned Additional GOVefnn-iefnit takes notice
for respondents–1 iared
2. This pre’fe_r1’ed seeking quashing of the
order dated 11.1.07.1191861151111i’;~A’.ir~id.V11 in MFA No.702 of 1977
and MFA ;jNO.e574io’f end the award dated 11.07.1986 in
1\/iFA1iNO_,i;702fiiiiiOef and MFA No.574 of 1978 passed by this
C0u1;1~&1i$–_pei*’ and D and for other consequential
i
-4-
3. The petitioner is a Corporation established under the
provisions of the Road Transport Corporation
Lands bearing Sy.Nos.15/2 measuring 4 acres
guntas, Sy.No.15/3 measuring 3 ” and’
belonging to respondent No.2 and
acres and 9 guntas belonging to respondent” allgsituated
at Jangamarakoppa Villageigof by
the State for the benefit of purpose of
establishing a staff quarters.
belliissued under Section 4( 1)
on by Section 6 notification.
Possession’ ofgthlei taken on 27.02.1960. The Land
an award on 25.03.1963 awarding
comp’en’s’atio’1’i7of/~ per acre in respect of Sy.Nos.15/4
Rs.iI;50{):«>’lper acre in respect of the other survey
Re’spondents–2 and 3 and other claimants filed an
under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
reference to the Court of the Civil Judge for
i,
granted under Section 23(l)(a) as well as the enhancenie-nt of
solatiurn. Even when the said application was taker;
consideration the petitioner was not madeV__ga”s_
Petitioner was not heard. However, _Ath;o’s_e ‘7Aa.n_1er1d_nieAnt’
applications were allowed and the_”benefi_tdof
given to these claimants. Thereafter, the clairnahtsiinitiated
execution proceedings in oiiflH1é86. On
coming to know of filed an
application allowed by the
executing by the said order,
claimants pfeigredicoiéiifie’;-r«:.si262 of 1987 and CRP No.5263
of 1987′ h-e’I’ore revision petitions were allowed.
jieipplieationlslliiwere dismissed by order dated
22.(l7″._1’9z?;$.””4ill”;.,ii_is’ii.i’,r1éar1y after fourteen years from that date
present ‘petition is filed challenging the award passed
H.ighi’VCourt on the ground that the petitioner was not
party to the proceedings and therefore, the
ppetitiolner has a right to challenge the said award. The
%/
Petition No.235 of 1986. In the said proceed.ingsh,:”p:’-the
beneficiary made an attempt to irnplead itself
successful before the executing court?’ ‘”Wh’en.;thei.revision
petitions were allowed by this Courti’s__etti_ng
order, the beneficiary stood exposed’»to the._eXec:utioniiiof the i
said decree. It was awareuof award.
Under those cast on the
beneficiary to approaitziiythyilsp Court’:’see’l%in.%;appropriate reliefs
without any fourteen long years
the petitioner”__v t_}1_tl~liiiiilrr1atter. No worthwhile
explanation these last fourteen years, the
ertecutioné case riotiyet The beneficiary has not paid
payable in one lurnpsum. It has
been” :a””typical judgment debtor in installments
and that”‘by”~-iiitscélf will not confer any right to challenge the
._order “foL1_rtee’n years after the said order. We are satisfied on
rrrateriai on record that there is an inordinate delay and
‘ Alacbes on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court.
g/at
laches and not on merits as such application of the saicilaw
in the facts of the case, Woukd not arise.