- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.100060 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SHRI. CHANDURAPPA
S/O. BHEEMAPPA JYOTHI,
DECEASED BY LR’S,
1. SUBHAS S/O. CHANDRURAPPA JYOTHI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
TQ: YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
BEERAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA JYOTHI,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S,
2. DEVAMMA W/O. BEERAPPA JYOTHI,
AGE:76 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
3. HANAMAPPA S/O. BEERAPPA JYOTHI,
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
4. MAHESHA S/O. BEERAPPA JYOTHI,
HANGARAKI
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Date:
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
2024.02.13
16:08:54
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
+0530
5. MANJAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA,
AGE:43 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARKERI, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
6. YAMANOORAPPA S/O. PARASAPPA,
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARKERI, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
7. HANAMAVVA W/O. HUCHHAPPA,
AGE:76 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
8. HANAMAPPA S/O. FAKEERAPPA,
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ:YELBURGA,DIST:KOPPAL.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B. SHARANABASAWA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. SANNAHANAMAPPA S/O. JOYTEPPA,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. LAO KOPPAL,
TQ AND DIST:KOPPAL.
BHEEMAPPA S/O. KARIYAPPA JYOTHI,
DECEASED BY LR’S,
3. DODDA HANUMAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA JYOTHI,
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
4. RENAMMA W/O. KARIYAPPA JYOTHI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HANDRAL, TQ and DSIT:KOPPAL.
5. CHANDURAPPA S/O. BHEEMAPPA JYOTHI,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. CHANDUR, TQ:YELBURGA, DIST:KOPPAL.
6. NINGAWWA W/O. SHARANAPPA DEVAR,
AGE:56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MUDHOL, TQ:YELBURGA,DIST:KOPPAL.
7. HANUMAWWA W/O. NAGAPPA JANGALI,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HALAVARTI, TQ AND DIST:KOPPAL.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEEPAK C.MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 TO R7;
SRI. PRAVEEN Y.DEVAREDDIYAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITON IS FILED UNDER SEC.115
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED:19.06.2018 PASSED IN
CIVIL MISC.NO.69/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, YELBURGA,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 30 OF
LAND ACQUISITION ACT.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.B.Sharanabasawa, learned counsel for the
revision petitioners and Sri.Deepak C Maganur and
Sri.Praveen Devareddiyavar, learned counsels for
respondents.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the
order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Yelburga dated 19.06.2018 in Civil Misc. No.69/2007.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this case are as under:
3.1 A reference was made by the Assistant
Commissioner, Koppal under Section 30 of the Land
Acquisition Act to determine as to the entitlement of
proper person to receive compensation for the land which
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer, Koppal to the
extent of 3 acre 31 guntas in Sy.No.128/5 of Chandur
village.
3.2 The revision petitioner and others were notified
in the said reference. The petitioners were Chandurappa
and others and respondent was Sannahanamappa.
3.3 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act came to be issued wrongly according to the
petitioners in the name of Sannahanamappa, who is no
way connected to the acquired land. Therefore, they
claimed that the property belongs to the petitioners
therein and sought for directing that award amount be
paid to them.
3.4 Respondent therein contended that he is the
owner of the property and therefore his name has been
rightly notified by the Land Acquisition Officer and sought
for payment of award amount in his name.
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
3.5 Learned Senior Civil Judge after raising
necessary points, recorded evidence of parties. After
hearing the parties in detail, the learned Senior Civil Judge
dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioners and
allowed the claim made by Sannahanamappa and directed
that the award amount is to be paid by the Land
Acquisition Officer in favour of Sannahanamappa.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners,
Sri.B.Sharanabasawa vehemently contended that the
learned Senior Civil Judge has wrongly passed the
impugned order and has failed to take note that
petitioners were the owners of property as their names
were found in 4(1) notification and sought for allowing the
revision petition.
6. Per contra, Sri.Deepak Maganur contended that
Sannahanamappa is the actual owner of the property and
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
revenue entries stood in his name which has been rightly
appreciated by the trial Judge in the Reference Court and
after considering the oral and documentary evidence
placed on record in a cumulative manner, the trial Judge
allowed the claim of Sannahanamappa and sought for
dismissal of revision petition.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
8. After hearing the parties in detail and on
perusal of material on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to
establish their right by filing a separate suit for declaration
in respect of acquired property.
9. Unless such a title is established by the
petitioners, merely on the ground that notification has
been made in their name, perhaps wrongly, is not
sufficient enough to hold that they are the owners of
acquired property.
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
10. Learned trial Judge in the Reference Court has
considered the rival contentions of the parties and has
rightly allowed the claim of Sannahanamappa and
permitted him to withdraw the award amount with accrued
interest.
11. Sri.Sannahanamappa, who was the respondent
in Reference is entitled to receive compensation as of now
along with accrued interest, subject to condition that he
shall give an undertaking that in the event of duly
constituted suit being filed by the revision petitioners and
decreed in their favour, he would return the entire award
amount with accrued interest as on the date of decree.
Amount in deposit with accrued interest is to be paid to
Sannahanamappa only after taking undertaking in the
form of any affidavit.
12. Subject to such observation, the civil revision
petition stands disposed of.
- 8 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2410
CRP No. 100060 of 2018
13. Further, if the suit is not filed within a year, the
amount withdrawn by Sannahanamappa would become
absolute.
14. The time spent in the Reference Court shall be
excluded for the purpose of limitation.
15. If a fresh suit is filed, all other contentions of
the parties are kept open to be urged in the suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 60