IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.51519/2019 (LA – RES) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI K.JAYARAM S/O LATE KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 2 . SMT.GANGAMMA W/O JAYARAM K., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KENKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577101 3 . SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT AVARAGERE VILLAGE, YADIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577101 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI MALLIKARJUN DODDABASAVARAJAPPA, ADV.] AND:
1 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI NALA DIVISION, TUMKURU AND BANGALORE HASSAN RAILWAY LINE CONSTRUCTION, TUMKUR DISTRICT-571101 2 . THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION), SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, CANTONMENT, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.08.2019 IN LAC No.228/2011 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT KUNIGAL VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 152 OF CPC FOR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT AND AWARD VIDE ANNEXURE-E BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KUNIGAL.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.08.2019 in L.A.C.No.228/2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. at Kunigal, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment of judgment and award passed in L.A.C.No.228/2011 dated 23.08.2018 has been rejected.
2. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that the Court below has awarded enhanced compensation in favour of all the claimants/petitioners in L.A.C.No.228/2011 and the same is clear in the final order, but in paragraph No.13 of the order it has been wrongly mentioned as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for the enhanced market value at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per acre to which the petitioners sought for correction. The Court below has failed to consider the application filed under Section 152 of CPC for correction of the said typographical error in a proper perspective.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that all the petitioners being the claimants in L.A.C.No.228/2011 are entitled to the enhanced compensation.
4. These factual aspects requires to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings before the Court below in view of the specific finding given in paragraph No.13 of the judgment dated 23.08.2018 in L.A.C.No.228/2011. Hence, no exception can be found with the order impugned.
The writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to resort to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR