IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5547 OF 2011 (LAC) BETWEEN:
BASF (INDIA) LTD., SURATHKAL-BAJPE ROAD BALA, VIA KATIPALLA MANGALORE-574192 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR LEGAL AND COMPANY SECRETARY SRI PRADEEP CHANDAN.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI K SACHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MRS. LALITHA AGED 82 YEARS WIFE OF LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY THOKUR VILLAGE MANGALURU TALUK-574191 (SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENTS No.2 TO 10).
Page No.1 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 05.04.2019.
2. MRS. LEELAVATHI AGED 64 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY THOKUR PADUMANE 62 THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
3. MRS. RATHNAVATHI AGED 53 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY THOKUR PADUMANE 62 THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU TALUK-574191.
4. MRS. BHAVANI AGED 55 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY THOKUR, PADUMANE 62, THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
5. MRS. KAMALA AGED 51 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY THOKUR PADUMANE 62, THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
6. MRS. VEDAVATHI AGED 46 YEARS DAUGHTER OF LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY THOKUR, PADUMANE 62, THOKUR VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
7. MR. NARAYANA AGED MAJOR SON OF LATE SANJEEVA SHETTY THOKUR PADUMANE 62, THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
8. MRS. YASHODHA AGED 55 YEARS WIFE OF LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY THOKUR PADUMANE 62, THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
9. MR. HARSHIT SON OF LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS RESIDING AT THOKUR PADUMANE 62, THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
10. KUM. DEEKSHA DAUGHTER OF LATE MUDDANNA SHETTY REPREENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND MRS. YASHODA (RESPONDENT NO.8) RESIDING AT THOKUR PADUMANE 62, THOKRU VILLAGE MANGALURU -574191.
(RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 10 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 1ST CLAIMANT) 11. SRI CHANDRAHASA SHETTY SON OF LATE SUBBAYYA SHETTY AGED 76 YEARS PADUMANE THOKURU VILLAGE JOKATTE POST, MANGALURU TALUK SINCE DECEASED,REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S Page No.3 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 05.04.2019.
11(a).MRS. VASANTHI SHETTY WIFE OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETTY AGED 73 YEARS 11(b).SRI. MOHANDAS SHETTY SON OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETTY AGED 46 YEARS 11(c).SRI.BALAKRISHNA SHETTY SON OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETTY AGED 44 YEARS 11(d).MRS. NAGAVENI DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETTY AGED 42 YEARS 11(e).MRS.JAYANTHI SHETTY DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETTY AGED 40 YEARS 11(f).MRS.INDIRA SHETTY DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETTY AGED 38 YEARS 11(g).MRS.NALINI SHETTY DAUGHTER OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETT AGED 36 YEARS 11(h).SRI BHASKAR SHETTY SON OF LATE CHANDRAHASA SHETTY AGED 34 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT PADUMANE THOKUR VILLAGE JOKATTE POST MANGALURU TALUK-574 192 D.K. DISTRICT.
12. SMT. SHASHIKALA SHETTY WIFE OF LATE RAMACHANDRA SHETTY AGED MAJOR PADUMANE, THOKUR VILLAGE JOKATTE POST MANGALURU TALUK.
13. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB BAIKAMPADY MANGALURU-575011 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:PRASHANTH KUMAR AND SRI.VIKRAM A HUILGOL, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, SRI:K.ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.2-12, SRI:P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.13) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.02.2011 PASSED IN LAC NO.23/1997 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & C.J.M,. MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE REFERENCE PETITION FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The memorandum of compromise is filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is signed by the appellant, Respondents No.2 to 10 on their behalf as well as, as legal representatives of deceased Respondent No.1.
2. Respondents No.9 and 10 are represented by their mother and next friend who is respondent No.8 herein. Respondent No.11 since dead by his legal representatives and respondent No.12 are represented.
3. Respondent No.13 is the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB who has no objection to accept the compromise petition.
4. Respondents No.7 and 11(h) are present in the court and are identified by their respective counsels.
5. The appellant is represented by the Director (Legal) who is present in the court and identified by his counsel.
6. The other respondents have filed independent affidavits sworn to at the addresses mentioned therein. They have also enclosed the General Power of Attorney dated 05.03.2019 authorizing respondent No.11(h) to represent them before this Court. They have also signed the compromise petition dated 07.03.2019.
7. On considering the clauses, we are of the view that the same is in the interest of all the parties and the settlement is lawful. Hence, the compromise petition is accepted. Judgment and award dated 01.02.2011 passed in LAC No.23 of 1997 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru is modified in terms of the compromise petition. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
50% of the court fee paid on this appeal is directed to be returned in favour of the appellant.
Decree to be drawn accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE mpk/-*CT:bms