DHARAMGOUDA Vs. SPL. LAO, RANEBENNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be the owners of land measuring 10 guntas in R.S. No.125/2, Shiragambi village, Hirekerur Taluk. State of Karnataka, acquired 24 guntas of land in R.S.125/2, Shiragambi Village, for the formation of Upper Tunga Irrigation Canal project, in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). The 1st respondent passed an Award dated 20.04.2004, in the name of the 2nd respondent. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the 2nd respondent sought for a reference by the 1st respondent to the Civil Court for determination of the market value of the acquired property. The 1st respondent having made a reference under S.18 of the Act, the same was registered as LAC No.360/2011, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Hirekerur.

(2.) In LAC 360/2011, the petitioners filed I.A.1, under O1 R10 (2) read with 151 CPC, for getting themselves impleaded as claimant Nos.2 to 4, by stating that, out of the acquired property, only 14 guntas belonged to the claimant-Shivappa Kariyappa Talawar and the remaining 10 guntas belonged to them and that the SLAO due to oversight, wrongly passed the Award in respect of the entire 24 guntas of land, in favour of the Shivappa Kariyappa Talawar. They stated, that on account of the understanding reached between themselves and the said claimant, compensation amount in respect of 14 guntas was paid to Shivappa Kariyappa Talawar and the remaining amount was paid to them. Having come to know that Shivappa Kariyappa Talawar submitted the reference application in respect of the entire 24 guntas of land and the reference was made, petitioners filed I.A.1 and sought impleading. The claimant having opposed I.A.1, finding that the reference made being under S.18 of the Act and the applicants, if have received any portion of compensation, having not sought reference under S.18 of the Act and in view of the denial of the claim of the applicants by the claimant- Shivappa Kariyappa Talwar, the learned Judge being of the view that the applicants have to establish their right and interest in a separate proceeding before competent court by initiating appropriate proceedings and such course of action being not permissible in the reference made under S.18 of the Act, I.A.1 was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the applicants have filed this writ petition.

(3.) Sri S.G. Kadadakatti, learned advocate for the petitioners contended that, although in the proceedings under S.18 of the Act, apportionment of the amount of compensation is not the subject matter, it is necessary that the reference be determined in the presence of the petitioners and thus, the petitioners are proper parties to the reference proceedings and that the reference Court has committed serious error in passing the impugned order.