IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.551 OF 2013(M) BETWEEN:
SRI.LAKSHIMINARAYANA S/O LATE M.N.CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BASETTIHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. (BY SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.3,, THIMMAIAH TOWERS 3RD FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 009.
... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.V.CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 16.08.2013 PASSED IN MISC.NO.16/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., DODDABALLAPURA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 18(3) (b) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACTAND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This revision petition arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur, dismissing the petition in Misc.No.16/2011 filed by the petitioner-claimant on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
2. Few facts would be necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under:-
It is not in dispute that the State Government issued a Preliminary Notification dated 23.03.2006 under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1996, (for short ‘the KIAD Act’) followed by Final Notification dated 14.07.2009 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act. Pursuant thereto, the respondent issued a notice under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act on 25.01.2010. The petitioner filed objections on 08.02.2010 to the said notice. Subsequently, on 15.10.2011, the petitioner filed an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the said Act of 1894’) seeking a direction to the Spl.LAO to make a reference for the purpose of enhancement.
Though, notice was served on the respondent in the Court below, the respondent remained ex-parte. The petitioner got examined himself as PW-1 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 and P5 were marked on his behalf.
3. The Court below after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner formulated the following points for consideration:-
“ (i) Whether the petition is in time?
(ii) Whether a direction to be issued against the respondent to make reference?
(iii) What order?”
4. The Court below after noticing the undisputed facts with regard to the issuance of notice dated 25.01.2010 and that the petitioner having filed his objections on 08.02.2010 had not filed the petition under Section 18(3)(b) within the stipulated period of 90 days i.e., on or before 07.05.2010, proceeded to answer both the points mentioned above against the petitioner by coming to the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. In this regard, the Court below placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das & Others vs. State of U.P.
(2010) 3 SCC 545 and dismissed the petition filed by the petition.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred by the claimant.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation in as much as the petitioner would be entitled to a period of three years 90 days from the date he filed his objections. In other words, it is contended that the petitioner having filed objections on 08.02.2010, he would be entitled to a period of 90 days as contemplated in Section 18(3)(b) of the said Act of 1894. After expiry of the said period of 90 days, the petitioner would be entitled to a further period of 3 years from 07.05.2010 as held by this Court and the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) Assistant Commissioner vs. Lakshmi Bai (ILR 1987 KAR 2132) (ii) State of Karnataka vs. Laxuman Others (2005) 8 SCC 709.
7. It is also contended by the petitioner that the judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Das case (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, in as much as, the Apex Court was not dealing with the application filed under Section 18(3)(b) as is applicable to the Special Court. It is contended that Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 as amended in Karnataka was not considered by the Apex Court while rendering the said judgment and consequently, the said judgment in Bhagwan Das case could not have been made a basis by the Court below to reject the petition filed by the petitioner as being barred by limitation.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has filed the detailed objections to the present petition and sought for dismissal of the same. He, however does not dispute that the respondent has remained the ex-parte in the Court below and had not chosen to contest the petition.
9. As stated above, it is not in dispute that the objections were filed by the petitioner on 08.02.2010 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed the petition under Section 18(3)(b) in the Court below on 15.10.2011. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions referred to above, the petition filed after the expiry of 90 days as contemplated in Section 18(3)(b) of the said Act of 1894, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference and the petition would be maintainable and not barred by limitation if at is filed within a period of 3 years.
10. In view of the undisputed factual situation mentioned above, it is clear that the Court below committed a gross and serious error and acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in coming to the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation. The finding recorded by the Court below is perverse and illegal and the same requires to be set aside by this Court.
11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to the objections filed by the respondent in this petition interalia bringing to the notice of this Court several facts and circumstances on the merits of the case, which according to him would disentitle the petitioner from seeking a reference with regard to the maintainability of the petition before the Court below. However, in view of the fact that the petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation without the respondent contesting the same, the question of examining/considering the various contentions and documents produced on behalf of the respondent in this revision petition would not arise. However, it is open for the respondent to contest the petition on all grounds and all contentions of the respondent are hereby left open.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following order:-
(i) The petition is hereby allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapur, in Misc.No.16/2011 is hereby set aside;
(iii) The matter is remanded back to the Court below for adjudication afresh after permitting both sides to file additional pleadings and adduce additional evidence on their respective sides;
(iv) The finding recorded by the Court below that the petition is barred by limitation is hereby set aside and the Court below is hereby directed to decide the matter on merits after giving an opportunity to both the sides;
(v) All contentions on both sides on merits are kept open except the issue regarding limitation which has been decided in favour of the petitioner as stated above.
(vi) Both the parties undertake to appear before the Court below on 09.12.2019 without further notice from the Court.
(viii) Having regard to the fact that the petition filed before the Court below is of the year 2011, the Court below is hereby directed to dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate not later than a period of six months from 09.12.2019.
(ix) Office is hereby directed to transmit the records forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Srl.