IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT W.P. Nos.7898/2017, 7896/2017 & 7900/2017 (LA-RES) IN W.P.NO.7898/2017 Between:
Union of India, Represented by The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South Western Railway, Mysore Division, Mysuru.
(By Sri N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Advocate) And:
1. Rajagopalshetty, Son of Ramachandrashetty Aged about 67 years And residing at SRS Jewelers, BM Road, Hassan 571 101.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, HRP-2 Hassan 571 101. .
(By Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, Advocate for R1 Sri Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R2) …Petitioner ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the judgment and award dated 11.03.2016 passed in LAC No.26 of 2013 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan (Annexure-A and B) and etc., IN W.P.NO.7896/2017 Between:
Union of India, Represented by The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South Western Railway, Mysore Division, Mysuru.
(By Sri N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Advocate) And:
1. Smt. Jayalakshmamma Wife of Late Nangegowda, Aged about 66 years.
2. K.M.Shivakumar Son of Late Nangegowda, Aged about 50 years.
3. K.M.Bharathi, Daughter of Late Nangegowda, Aged about 45 years.
4. K.M.Paramesh Son of late Nangegowda Aged about 40 years 5. Smt. Dhanalakshmi Wife of Rajanikanth Aged about 37 years … Petitioner 6. K.M. Doreswamy Son of late Nangegowda Aged about 48 years.
Respondent 1 to 6 are residing at # 402, 11th Cross, Kuvempunagar, Hassan 571 101.
7. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, HRP -2, Hassan. ... Respondents (By Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, Advocate for R1 Sri Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 passed in LAC No.25 of 2013 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan (Annexure-A and B) and etc., IN W.P.NO.7900/2017 Between:
Union of India, Represented by The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) South Western Railway, Mysore Division, Mysuru-570 024.
(By Sri N.S. Sanjay Gowda, Advocate) And:
1. Mahendra Son of H N Manjegowda Aged about 46 years, And residing at Vidyanagar Extension, Mahendra Nilaya, Near Donge Hospital, MG Road, Hassan 571 101.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, HRP-2 Hassan 573 201. .
(By Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, Advocate for R1 Sri Dildar Shiralli, HCGP for R2) …Petitioner ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the judgment and award dated 12.02.2016 passed in LAC No.24 of 2013 by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hassan (Annexure-A and B) and etc., These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing - B Group this day, the court made the following:
COMMON ORDER In all these matters, the grievance of the writ petitioner relates to passing of awards by the Reference Court, enhancing the compensation without giving an opportunity of hearing to it.
2. Learned standing counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of these writ petitions is substantially similar to the one in cognate W.P.No.55485/2017 (LA-KIADB) between the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board Vs. Byregowda and another, disposed off by this Court vide judgment dated 20.11.2018 and therefore, the petitioner be granted the similar relief on the principle of parity as held by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 11.12.1974 in Writ Appeal Nos.932-933/1974, there being no derogative circumstances that come in the way.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents-land losers submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that they would have some objections to passing of the awards by the Reference Court and that nothing has been stated in these Writ Petitions in that regard and therefore, the petitions be rejected.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-land losers; I have perused the writ petition papers.
5. The subject matter of these writ petitions, as rightly contended by the learned standing counsel for the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court mentioned above, and therefore, the petitioner needs to be granted similar relief as has been granted in the said judgment.
6. In the operative portion at page 11 of the judgment, this Court has observed as under:-
“ In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned judgment and awards rendered by the Reference Court; the matter is remanded for consideration afresh within an outer limit of four months after providing an opportunity of hearing to the beneficiaries of acquisition. The parties are put on notice to appear before the jurisdictional Reference Court on 17.12.2018 and to seek instructions in the Reference Proceedings.”
7. In view of the above, these writ petitions which involve common question of law and facts too partly succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned judgment and awards rendered by the Reference Court; the cases are remanded to the said Court for consideration afresh within a period of three months, after hearing permitting impleadment of the aspiring stakeholders.
8. The parties, through their counsel, are put on notice to appear before the Reference Court on 06.03.2019 and seek further instructions from the learned Presiding Officer.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR