BASALINGAPPA NINGAPPA Vs. DY COMMR DHARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this appeal is posted for orders, by consent of parties it is taken up for final hearing as the matter is an old one and involves a very short question of law.

(2.) The appellant plaintiff has filed the suit in question (OS No. 254 of 1973) in the Court of the Munsiff at Dharwar for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings started by respondent- 1 and 2 (who are the Deputy Commissoner and the Assistant Commissioner of Dhawar, respectively) under the notification bearing No. LAQ. SR. 295 including the notices issued thereunder for acquiring the lands belonging to tbe plaintiffs along with other lands situated in Sattur and Navlur villages under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act. 1966, are null and void and for a permanent injunction. The relief of declaration has been valued at Rs, 661 64 by the plaintiff, under S. 24 (b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The relief of injunction (rough valued at Rs. 100, no separate Court fee is paid on it on the ground that the relief of injunction is consequential to the main relief of declaration. Thus, the suit has been valued at Rs. 761-64 for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction,

(3.) The trial Court is of the view that the acquisition proceedings challenged in the suit relate to more than 23 acres of agricultural land, therefore, the subject matter of the suit is immoveable property ; hence the actual market value of the suit properties is necessary to be furnished for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of the Court. On taking this view, it has dismissed on 25 11 1974 the suit on the ground that the actual market value of the lands in question has not been furnished by the plaintiffs. There was an appeal preferred by the plaintiffs being RA No 111 of 1974 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Dharwar, against the afore aid order dismissing the suit. The learned Civil Judge was also of the opinion that the suit was valued by the plaintiffs under S. 24 (b) of the Act and as such, the proviso to sub- sec. (1) of S. 50 of the Act was attracted ; consequently, the actual market value of the lands involved in the acquisition was necessary for the purpose of determining jurisdretion the Court. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal by holding that the order passed by the trial Court should be treated as one passed under Or. 7 R. 11 of CPC. Hence, this second appeal.