IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
MISS VASUDHA RAMABHADRAN SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HER ASSIGNEE SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SONNAPPA RESIDING AT 171/2 3RD MAIN CHAMARAJPET BENGALURU - 560 030.
(By MR.S VENKATESH SHASTRY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS TRANSPORT BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 001 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
… PETITIONER (By MR. K DILIP KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1(ABSENT) MR. CHANDAN, ADV. FOR R2) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 16.12.2016 AT ANNEX-F; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.S.Venkatesh Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Chandan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to make payment of compensation to the petitioner for acquisition of 7 guntas of land forming part of Sy.Nos.392 and 393 of Attibele Village and Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a dispute with regard to apportionment of the amount and therefore, the competent authority be directed to refer the same to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner’s entitlement for receipt of the amount of compensation has already been determined by order dated 26.05.2005 passed in LAC No.7/1995 and the petitioner has been paid compensation in respect of lands measuring 14 guntas in Sy.Nos.392 and 393 by the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The acquisition of the land of the petitioner has been made under the National Highways Act, 1956. Section 3H(4) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount of any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof shall be payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Since the Act itself provides a relief to the petitioner, therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction that the competent authority shall refer the dispute for apportionment of the amount of compensation to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.392 and 393, within one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today and the aforesaid principal civil court of original jurisdiction shall decide the dispute referred to it by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties within four months from the date of receipt of reference from the competent authority.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV