High Court Karnataka High Court

The Special Land Acquisition … vs Mahadev S/O Huchappa @ Huchaiah on 9 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition … vs Mahadev S/O Huchappa @ Huchaiah on 9 November, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9" DAY OF NOVEMBER 203.0

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAwAD    

C.R.P. No. I0:%2E/2010. 

BETWEEN:

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER». _  
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT A.UTHO._RITv  
I.L.B.ROAD, MYSOREES-«7L:O1'7   

* I ° '   PETITIONER

(BY SRI. P S MANJUNATHLADVR. 

AND

MAHADEV '. .1E=y.T« v.*.'-
S/O HUCHAPPA @_ HU.CH~AIA'h,  
AGED ABOUT 38,YEIARS=    
LALITHADRIPURA"-. * I
VARUNA HEJBLI '- 
MYSQ RE  g;,DIST. - 570E001

  " I   RESPONDENT

'C'R.Avf5."FILVEI5--".U-ANVDVEVR SEC. 115 OF CPC, FILED AGAINST

 ORDER DATED 31.10.2009 PASSED LAC.402/2004 ON

'~«'.Ii'P'.r:1"E_L"r'-IIAALET OETHE PRINCIPAL CIVIL IUDGE (SR. DN.),
§ _ 'i.r§IYSOfREV,: ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 18(3)(b) OF
V.'I-°?HE.E.'LA"ACT.

 V'V:""R.,.__THIS CRP IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
 DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:



I
IN)
E

ORDER

This revision under Sec.115 of cpc .’is’it:’diiije~,;ted

against the order dated 31/10/2009 in

the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dni-),””‘ iviys_0’re,£0.lallilowliinigf; the 0

petition under Sec. 18(3)(b) of lthgeiténci’Atfquiisitic}i~~i.iic:igg

and directing the petitionerVh’e:rei.n to.Vse.nd–re_’f_erenVce to the’

court within 30 days foradju.di’ca.t_ion’;”«.__

2. Petition is ifiosted0ifo:r:”adirrii$’s.ii0h.. Perused the

records.

3′;_:fiT;h’e.’:’:i§::espognd’ent””i”herein, whose lands in
Sy.No;”3._3Zi/7′ guntas situated at Sarkari

Uttanahalli»pvillage,t’._\/aituna Hobli, Mysore Taluk, were

ac.;}’L}:ired’ for p”urp.o.se of formation of sites, received

‘ compAe’n4sat.viori’—i_n pursuance to the award on 24/3/2004

through and then filed an application under Sec.18

of “the”«3_i{arnataka Special Land Acquisition Act on

V’ i,2l/4/2004, for referring the matter to the court for

cigetermining the enhanced compensation.

a {2L_,
0*

4. The LAO failed to make reference to the court on

the ground, the request of the respondent was belated.

S. Aggrieved by such inaction on the

petitioner herein, the respondent fiied LAC

an appiication under Sec.18(3)(t3′)”of”the”Land:AiV:Ar;qVuis:i<tioi1

Act, for issuance of direction to to bse_,nd».reefe*rience~.,,

pertaining to iand in Sy.NoV.1*3E4/-7 measu'ring'_:

for adjudication. The…'app,iicatio'n"was resisted by the

petitioner on the ground Vthiatiii-t.

brought out 0VVtiii”raugh_’i’eiisVev*id-‘ence that no notice of the
award wasserved is required under Sec.12(2) of

the_§Act.. Th’e._V_,contention of the petitioner was, the

:’res,,pondent,waVs aware of the award as he had received the

A”‘corn_pens:a’_t.iivonV.;’oh 24/3/2004. The Learned Trail Judge has

exaimined evidence on record and found that, though

(tide,respondent received the award on 24/3/2004, within

rnonth he had fiied application under Sec.18 of the

it “Act, which was in time. Since notice under Sec.12(2) was

not served or issued to the respondent, the materiai date

(/1 Q”

was 24/3/2004. The Learned Triai Liudge has placed

reiiance on the decision of this court reported in ILR

KAR 2119.

7. The order impugned suffers

Iegai or otherwise, caiiing for inter_ference.:”~.. HenTce.i,

petition is rejected.