IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA, .
CIRCUIT BENCH AT IMARWAI) " I "--- I
DATES THIS mags TH DAY OF'SEP?EM'BER;: fi'OQ§
PRESENT» V»
THE HON'BLE MR..3:t$I°J_.cE I%i.I<UII4:A12
AND I I I
THE I~1oN'BI,E MRJLISTICEABI.sI2EEN_IvAsE GOWDA
M.F.A.§§.474;6'zfVQmg IV ..
BETWEEN IIII M N
THE LAN[§"~ACQU'I:'§:IT:iO1§I{}§'E?I:CER'-
ASSISTANT C',QP.!IMlSSiOf€ER,_ "
JAMKI-.IAND£,V--, .
DIS'FRICT:. I3AGAIII';0*I*}"
"-I23? $RI_,K.$.I%E§IYAPAK, AGA.)
,sI::I.MURA.LI'I3HAR BHEMAJE VAIDHA
MAJOR,
."R,I.oI.BHAGYAsHREE HOUSING SC)CiE'I'Y,
5&6?'-._E',"";'ARABAi PARK, KQLHAPUR
._'(Iv'IAI«IAR.As'rRA) 416 00 1,
V' "'s:2¥IcE DIED BY HIS LRS, \J\/
... APPELLANT.
1(A) SMTSNEHAL MURALHDHAR VAIDYA
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
1(I-3) MRSSHUBHADA ANIRUDDHA DESH?AN.r3S. - "
AGE: 43 YEARS, RESISING AT NO~;'5%31, '
TOL LANE, SOUTH KASABA, ' '
SOLAIDUR, MAHARASHTRA.
1(0) MRS.vA1SHAL; SACHIN KHA:vzAKAR- I _
AGE: 38 YEARS, REpRESEN*rSD BY HER . I
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOL_DE¥%__H~ER Mo*rH._ER
APPLICANT NO.1(A)v HEREIN. ' I' " "
1(1)) MSDEEPALI MURALIDI-§ARS',vA:"DI:A---
AGE: 38 YEARS. v
RESPONDE1$I'{*'_NOL1(A}';~_1{C} 'ANI} 1(9) ARE
RES1D:NAG'~AT r<:::;,).._4e=:3, PHASEJI;
PINLNAC NiIi?MOi'<3IE::"3, KQTHRUD,
PU N-E~«~'~§» 1 1 033;" -MAHARASFYFRA.
.. RESPONDENTS.
__ _(BY SI2.;%f.};4.c’;,I~aAGAII~I:IR, ADVOCATE.)
” «.I’*rIIIS*fIm}AIISIS FILES U’/S 54(1) OF’ LA ACT AGAINST THE
JU13»::§Es;Ii::–I.~;}’1*.v’AAt’13. AWARD DATES 14/ 12/2004 PASSED IN
LAC “i’!_Q«.594].8?’.:D’N THE FILE 0? THE ADSL. CIVIL JUDGE
‘ (SR.I:~,1§I;), JAMKHANDI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE
.IéE’r1TI’e:3N mS”SNHANSSD COMPENSATION.
A ,THIS’ MF’A SSMINS ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
rIf.”I:u_MAR J., SELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
‘X/I
JUDGMEN?
The appeal is admitted and
considerafion by consent of the 3
2) It is an appeal preferred ,
judgment and award passed referetéce: holding
the respondent is the he entitled to
compensation and _ also for compensation.
For the ‘ot; parties are referred to
as they reference Court.
3} .. Tfie ,sub}.eCt”-ziiéitter of the acquisition is about
gctrés of land at Hunnur village of Jamakhandi
Bijaptlr district, now Bagalkot district. We
fméAfromv_.the4i’.reoords there is a deliberate attempt on the
‘ ” sf theappeliant to withhold the ‘documentswhich are
possession which should have thrown light and
clear description of the property and the other
“j)roceedings. Under those circumstances we deem it proper
\\/
4
to gather from the material on record the facts of @i’ie”‘~ease
and resolve the dispute as otherwise it may’ <
confusions.
4) The Iand in questioIi=_ i
farmer Rajasaheb of Jamaklxaildi unkiei’ a Sah’a§1.i_ss11}ed’%i:1:”e.
the year 11-08-1869 an extent’VL4o{‘, 6SVV_acfesafas granted to
one Keshavaeharya I11 fact the
land so granted was The Sanad
aiso of tiie V different persons in the
area who’Ae:;1’tivate§I’1″rhe and the grantees pay R540/-
per anmlm as .gV1′(:11i}d”‘-rem. The gantees were given the
eptioiri «Vizofiifajisgfi the by actual cultivation or to make it
case may be. The origlnal survey of
‘fluaralr j;:l’.ag*eT actually took place in the year 1894-95.
” ” ‘T portion of the Land gamed aforesaid was subjected
Vsurvey operations Whereas the refilaining poriion of the
VT ‘area was treated as ‘gaothan’. The area treated as ‘gaothan’
“however remained in possession of the grantee. The
la./o
grantees transferred some areas to different
used to recover the ground rent. ‘I’t1eA»VI.-sued V’
matter of this acquisition prmeedifigs uot
suzvey éurirag original the” ‘
remaining Portion WffiCh…eViC¥¢”fi?:i$f:’– écultixretble area
out of the land which was actually
surveyed i.e. the 2 new survey
number No.36′; ‘survey numbers fell
within HL1i1nu1j.Avii1§2i§e;’– – _
5) A_fte1f the the original grantee the
claimar_:t’s fatiierv A’ succeeded to the estate. In the family
sheet tmweentme claimant and his brother the
the shale of the brother Madhusudhan
Z Shriuivas Subsequently the said Madhusudhan
.. ‘A”;’31fj1:*II1iVaS ‘Véaidya executed an exchange deed i1″: respect of
_1’a’1:udA in favour of the claimant as is clear from Ex.I~’-‘.2
Vt .:’_:§s?}*1iet1 is dated 22–~}2–1956 by receiving another land in
{you
6
View of this Land. The revenue authorities accepted the
Claimants ownership over the land in qnestiozn.
6) 01:: 05-04» 1953 the villagers of %
is now treated as part of Runner applied tQ.t1f1e_: .,
Jamakhandi holding that the
enereached by the owners of .tt1e_.Vad3:ei1_’2’i’:1g u
enroachment made by these K siV:’§(;~g_1’t§:i:V’:be’:Vf;£’e111oveci
and the ‘gaothan’ area thexe for non
agricultural u:Se5i._.e._a eenetfttnetieim of residential houses. The
applieatioxi’ Was” “by the Circle Officer of
the circle officer reported that
jieede Izv-eatreng Sy.N.36, 3′? and 38 of I-Itmmjr
Rataateerth were granted tn the ancestors of
t the two others of Jamakhandi on }1~O8~
t ‘1§t’;9Ve1§y nSh%rimant Rajasaheb of Jamakhandi as in an. The
4’_’_mea_em*ements were taken on }8-O6–195’7 by the surveyor.
Vt found that some 01′ the adjoirfing hoiclers of the land
3 had efleroaehed the land. These land owners admitted the
M/..
encmachments and promised to remove them… f
claimants did not admit the enc1’oachn1ent_g1:i£eI~~..e}2§.i:me(i
enquiry U/Sec:.37(2) of Bombay
Accordingly enquiry was _ee;1d1 iCted; *’
produced evidence in suppo1*t”V6,i;.:.fi1ej1′ Vgllagers V
and the authorities ” After an
elaborate enquiry_the the open site
now in dispute aefes “a£i1d—-“16 guntas is in the
private Qwfiersliip ihe’~e1’e.J’nea%iht’ the assertion of the
Village it vests in the Government
and the Qov’ei’n:11e:;{-.’sAA0_iV11ership is unfortunateiy not true.
3 “‘i’}1ere§f’j5re:»_’it:: dvee1az*ed,””i;i1e site is under the ownership of the
the parties were informed. The said
orde1”.fl< )f {he has become final. The said order
ezame to"13e 1passeci on 3 1-0 1-1961 which is at E:x.P. E7.
7'): *'I'hereaft:er the Chairman, VPC Htmnur
T feqiiested for acquisition of malaici open sites measuring 14
[acre/-:3 which is the subject. {flatter of this iitigation for the
RV
purpose of consfiuction of high school building and for
providing house sites to the villagers of
panohayat 3150 passed a resolution 3 its
meeting held on 21-03-1967
cost of aoquisitien charges. piirsuanoes of the said'
request from the Chairman eioquisition
proceedings were inifisted f_;fo1; .i Vi'ao_q.§ii'ri11g the land in
question. A prelingiriazy be issued on
21—O6- Land Acquisifion Act
as per notification Keshav Bh1m' aji
Vsidya wasxishown and amibhavadar of the
-Wland q_’_£i€iSiZi0Z} none other than the father of the
i*c;iainiaot’;v._I>Iowever without issuing notice to the khatedar
aniatfiéafd be passed on 1941-1967. On coming to
‘know of said award the claimant preferred a writ
before this Court in W.P.No.128/1968. This Court
V’ that there was no service of notioe in the proceedings
fim’t1’ated under Secfion 9 before passing the award.
ix’/o
Therefore it held, the award made by the
respondent on 19-11-1967 cannot be sus_tair1ec:iV~.’.,_i _
– accordingly it. was quashed and the Iand ac~;quiveii:i.e:1.::efiieef ~ V.
was directed to make award
yrovisions of Sectien 9 of the v
order came £0 be passed on Oetdliea as per
Ex.P.26. Thereafter the hefore the Land
Acquisition Ofiicer,’-fixied :’.pé:’educed all the
necessary ii-;@__:.4V1;aad:’ficquisition Ofiieer
passed __1§~09~}9’75 as per Ex.P.9
awarding a V’su_a1V,of Rs.._8.”,/~ as cempensation per acre.
“{“Z:1I’i0fg1§:=iyE__fii1j:he”Sai-f1____a:Wa;I’d he did not mention that the
V.sa1d.V’aa:Qa,I:1’tjedi;e._be paid to the claimant. The draft award
was’ fei1ewed.v*V’b§..aa fine} award on G9~10~1986. The claimant
preferred agfreference under Section 18 read with Section 3}
reference Court as per EXP. 1. The reference Court
V’ –.._}9eee%rded the evidence both on the question of market value
Wei] as the quesfion cf fitle. After such enquiry,
{N/..
30
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on it
held, claimant is the owner of the land in c;uest.i§iti’efn£t
he is entitled to compensation. _It_ also ” =
compensation payable from Rs.8, 1142/
all other consequential betiefits. ‘
award passed by the referenee: oil ~ vvvfbeeember
2004 is stayed in appeé.l’;’*–.V:t” T _
8) ‘l’}1e§.1e:er:;r12ed assailing the
impugned’ 1:>’y£it;VV1’1e_jreferenee”CouI’t in so far as finding
regaI’dh1gtit1’eVis’eoIieerr1eti’~contends, the claimant has not
proéueed a:c’§ce;;.:taA1.§1e锑evicienee to show his title to the
the’ reference Court was not justified in
of the claimant and directing payment of
2 the A “eo1n_pe:1e~efion to the claimant and therefore he
irnpugled order is liable to be set aside. Per
.'(;3′(Jr?(“_.v£Vti'{,i.Au’:t:{1(‘: Ieamed counsel for the respondent appearirzg for
claimant supports the aware. 14/
21
9) F’ro:m the aforesaid facts and eontentioV11s’o.t_11e
point that arise for our consideration is, whetiier’ ‘tiiee
which is the subject matter of the aegLtisitio1’1″beIonigs to = ‘V
ownership of the claimant as sueh }jteé..
compensation payable for its ae_qz;.isition’i§ V V t I V t
10) Before the pieferentef,-»vp:._ ” ticlaimant
examined himself as examined two
other Witnesses produced in all
about reference application,
Ex.P.2 ism” the deed of exchange under
which ,t21eu got titie to the property in question.
ssitppEx.r%.4; is fhe”tpa1titieii”§eed under which an the joint family
partitioned and the aforesaid property fell
to fvof Madhusucihan from whom in turn the
” ‘got the property by way of exchange deed Ex.P.2.
Ex-.,_P;»?..shows that the name of the father of the eiaimant is
.:’_4’s}1oi§:vn as anubhavadar and khatedar fer the land in
euestion. Ex.P.8 is the award dated 19–1I-1967. Ex.P.9 is
[A/.
12
the draft award dated :9-09-4975. E)x.P.10 tiefitcr
issued by the Assistant Commissioner,
Tahasiiéar. Ex.P.1} and P. 12 are
claimant. E:-{.P.14 is the 1
Ex.IP.2O is another gazette also
produced the certified objection
in the earlier Ex.P.26 is
the oréer respondent State
examined xthem was not offered
for ‘- did not produce any
doc1:mentar”y4.,evideneei._ ” é
iri be..r:..kgound we have to appreciate the
irrraterisi to find out to whom the property belorzgs
‘ to. iiniso far’é.s.fthe Government is concerned, their case is
itifiat, beioogs to the village panchayat. The case of the
‘panehayat is, it belongs to the Government. But the
or the village panchayat has not produced any
fiiootiznent before the Court to show their title. On the
tv
13
contrary the documents produced by the c1aimar1’t
title. r_q’I’he plaintiffs ancestors got this ‘ax
Sanad from Raja of Jamakhandi. i5*hey4’1:a§e. ibeeizi’ eiajeyteg
this property. They have paid-V_”They 2 2
title by alienating some portiotit: was
granted to them. In the when” the village
panchayat contended :v,.i1e1ve encroached
upon ‘gaothaniv under Section
37(2) of {hes Act and in the enqtiiry
it was to the ciaimant and it does
not belongiiiitqii the -Cfiovertiment or the village panchayat.
.–‘V.{f11at._fct’det’ has final and binding on the parties. It
eftetf “etder the Village panchayat requested the
acquire this land for the purpose of
iepnstzuetienv of school building and also to provide sites to
who are siteless in the village. Therefore
‘ jecquisifion proceedings are initiated shewing the names of
V the father ef the claimant as axmbhavadar and khatedar of
h/,
14
the land in question. When award came to be passed
without notice to the claimants father, a writ
filed before the High Court contending that
which is sought to be acquired without V’ ‘
therefore the award passed is
this Court in the aforesaid writioifietition set award a d
directing the parties 1;;,;..jssue’,;1ot¥,§e’ ‘Section 9(2) to
the claimant and the matter.
Thereaiter the before the Land
Acquisition” 4′ his statement, produced
docmnentsx.’ Acquisition Officer held, the
= c1air_.12e1t is not tIie~o12mer and the compensation awarded is
–~ Therefore the claimant sought for
refereiice18 and 31 of the Act to the reference
reference Court on carefu} consideration of the
” documentary evidence on record rightly upheld
claim of the ciaimant and has passed the impugned
uifaward. In the light of the aforesaid facts set out above,
t/
15
there is no infirmity in the award passed by ‘
Court whiczh calls for interference. Thr3iiéi”srs_1£fs
any merits if} this appeal.
dismissed.
Mrk/ –