IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.59648 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
N.M. PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE M.N.MANJAPPA R/AT NANDIGODANAHALLI VILLAGE AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN-573101 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. COMPETENT AUTHORITY MANGALORE-BANGALORE PIPELINE PROJECT, MANGALORE-575001 2. N.A. NANDAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE ANNAPPA SHETTY R/AT NANDIGODANAHALLI VILLAGE AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK HASSAN-573101 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. M.S. ASHWIN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDES IN MISC.NO.4/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.5.2014, PASSED IN MISC.PET NO.4/2010, BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HASSAN, AT ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY ALLOW THE MISC. PETITION NO.4/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner claiming to be the absolute owner, in possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.2/2 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas situated at Nandigondanahalli village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur taluk has filed the present petition contending that 5 guntas of land had been acquired in terms of Section 3 and 6 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (‘Act’ for short). The acquisition is not in dispute. Possession of the land was also taken over. When the matter was taken up for award of compensation, respondent No.2 also filed his claim contending that he is in possession and has ownership rights and therefore, he is entitled for compensation. The said dispute had to be decided by the Addl. District Judge, Hassan as regards his entitlement for compensation.
2. A perusal of the order dated 3.05.2014 passed in Misc. Case. No.4/2010 indicates that the said matter was dismissed taking note of the fact that petitioner has not produced 4(1) notification and award before the Court.
3. Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the land has been acquired and possession has already been taken. Hence, production of 4(1) notification could not have been a ground for dismissal of the claim.
4. There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The Addl. District Judge could have called upon the parties to produce the same and taken the matter forward instead of dismissing the same on that ground, moreover, when the acquisition is not in dispute.
5. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Addl. District Judge, Hassan, for consideration afresh in accordance with law. In the event of further documents being required, the parties are at liberty to produce them.
6. The Addl. District Judge, Hassan is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE ln