IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE
DATED THIS THE em DAY OF DECEMBER *'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SIJI4%LI%1ASFi.AB--h:PLD'I.:SL:V '
MFA NO.83:Q_§_VOFV"2O'10V '
BETWEEN: A' " 'V
SR1 K.P.1\/IRUTHUNJAYA. G A
S /0 PUTTALINGEGOWDA: %
AGED ABOUT 38. YEARS». I '
R/AT FIROZ I
ARcT1AKARAHAI;L1._DHA£.RINcIpAL._cIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.)
RAMANAGARA, DISPOSING KEFEPENCE PETITION
FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION. " "
THIS APPEAL COMING ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT_D.EL13g'ER.ED.__THE F'OLLOWING:~
.::JI}D(3I/IIENT
._'oy.:Eespondent no.2 before the Court
of':f1"in_oip0al CAiViI.....I1Idge, Sr. Dvn., Ramanagara in LAC
20.9.2010.
" Respondents 2 and 3 are the owners of land
‘beéring Sy.No.137 to the extent of 33 guntas,
.. _.;ISy.No.139/1 to an extent of 3 acres 19 guntas, Sy.No.
140 to an extent of 3 acres 27 guntas and Sy.No.141 to
an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas totally measuring 9 ‘acres
1 1 guntas. These lands were acquired by the
Arkavathi Scheme under a preliminary *
Land Acquisition Officer determined’«thelc’oinp:ensation…’ it
However, the owners were
compensation, sought for the
dispute was referredi”undermV_Siectio’nq of the Land
Acquisition Actas that he
is a holderofaiilagrcerrient interested in the
land of the compensation
and he isientitled for Rs.7,90,000/–
t0wards*hisishare”: _ it
_t3;i..Eefore the Civil Court, respondents 1 and 2 got
H ._ theinselves examined as PW1 and 2 and
to 13.32 whereas the appellant — 211″
iiprespondent before the Civil Court did not lead any
2 2′ evidence.
4. Learned Civil Judge on consideration ofgthe
evidence found that the appellant herein
under an agreement, he has not estabiishediliis
in the land, agreement is requireldlto
the Civil Court. Even if he the to
the agreement as there is his’
favour and he is ng»l;;:4_entitied:_ of the
compensation __as disputed by
Tespondentg Court under
section Act cannot decide as
to and accordingly, it
rejected find respondent. It is against
thefigsvarne, 2’mi_Vrespondent before the Civil Court is in
.. hiaearned counsel for the appellant submitted C
C ” is a holder of agreement and he had entered into
agreement for purchase of the property acquired now
the iand is acquired and as such he is entitled for
9%
apportionment of compensation. He further submitted
that he has paid Rs.7,90,000/– and only Rs.1’f.Q.§3lV:lal§fi1:~’i~§
to be paid and as such, he is entitled for
from the compensation awarded;
that though appellant had no led llevidendcelpi the
Court ought not to have lregiiected the
owners of the land the were
denying the claim of
6.” H is based on an
agreerr1xen_t.l it i_sHVr1Vot admitted. It requires
to be proved itheppiiéappropriate Court and if the
is e”nt,it1ed for any compensation or damage or
of his advance amount, he has to seek
an appropriate Court. To seek
apportionment, he must have a concluded contract
unid.erl\ivhich he must have a legal right to receive the
Rcornpensation. Since, it is a disputed agreement, the
wCivil Court has rightly rejected. No error is committed
by the civil Court. I find no good ground to interfere.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. However, libertyjs
reserved to the appellant to Work out his .
accordance with law.
brn