IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.31465/2018 (LA – KIADB) BETWEEN:
J.SHIVANARAYANA REDDY S/O J.RANGAREDDY AGED 57 YEARS R/AT No.318, 100 FEET ROAD INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-38 BY HIS GPA HOLDER SREERAMA REDDY S/O HANUMANTHA REDDY AGED 50 YEARS R/AT No.418/4, 4TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE-560027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S.RAMA MURTHY, ADV.) AND:
1. GOPALAPPA S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT BYCHAPURA VILLAGE ANNESWARA POST DEVANAHALLI-562110 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB, No.49, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANDRAPPA.V., ADV. FOR C/R-1; SRI B.B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC No.107/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE, SR. DIVISION, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED ON I.A.11 DATED 02.06.2018.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Principal Civil Judge, [Sr. Dvn.] at Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District ['Trial Court' for short] in L.A.C.No.107/2006 dated 10.07.2018 on I.A.No.11 whereby the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 7 Rule 11 [d] read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.
3. The petitioner is claiming to be the rival claimant with respect to the acquisition of land in Sy.No.28, Block No.5 measuring 3 acres 20 guntas, the subject matter of the petition. The reference is made by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ['Act' for short] with respect to the acquisition of the subject lands. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein/claimant No.7 has filed the application I.A.No.11 seeking for rejection of the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1/claimant No.5, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the respondent No.1 had purchased the property in question from one Sri.Muniyappa during the period of prohibition. Hence, the said claimants have no right to claim compensation regarding the acquisition of the property in question. The Court below failed to consider the same in rejecting the I.A.No.11.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.1 submits that indeed, the petitioner/claimant No.7 has no locus to challenge the orders passed impugned herein. The Court below has rightly rejected the application which necessarily deserves to be confirmed by this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. The dispute relating to the compensation amount to be awarded in respect of the subject lands has been rightly referred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. Merely on the ground that the petitioner has filed an application seeking for rejection of the claim petition of the respondent No.1 sans holding any trial no decision can be arrived at. The matter indeed requires full pledged trial. Considering the same, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application – I.A.No.11 filed by the petitioner. The disputed questions cannot be decided in this writ petition. No exception can be found with the order impugned.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.