NEELAGANGAWA Vs. BASAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT 2 in LAC No. 16 of 1983 has filed this appeal under Section 54 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The limited prayer which is sought for by the appellant in this appeal is that she alone is entitled to receive the compensation amount with all benefits in respect of R. Sy. No. 11/a/1 of Chikkasangam Village.

(2.) FACTS in brief are: that certain lands belonging to the appellant and legal representatives of the respondent herein, namely, Sy. No. 3/1b measuring 2 acres 28 guntas; Sy. No. 11/a/l measuring 3 acres 10 guntas; Sy. No. 11/a/2 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas; and Sy. No. 11/b measuring 22 guntas was acquired under the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10-10-1990. In pursuance of the said notification, the parties to this appeal i. e. , the appellant and the original respondent filed claim petitions seeking compensation of Rs. 35,000/- per acre for irrigated lands. The Land acquisition Officer, after due enquiry, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,200/- and rs. 3,200/- per acre for irrigated and dry lands respectively. The said compensation was accepted under protest. They sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement. The learned Civil Judge on assessing the material on record came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 7,700/- per acre for dry lands and Rs. 11. 550/- for irrigated lands. This judgment passed by the reference Court has attained finality. It appears an application was filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside ex parte decree for placing her ex parte in the reference proceedings. Suffice it to say the said application was numbered as Misc. No. 20 of 1987. The Reference Court passed an order on the said application to the effect that the said application for placing her ex parte was not diligently prosecuted and ultimately rejected the said application and permitted the appellant to file an application under order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC in the execution proceedings. With this observation, the said Miscellaneous proceedings were disposed of.

(3.) SINCE the said amount as determined by the Reference Court was not deposited, execution proceedings were initiated in Execution No. 236 of 1988. In view of the observation made by the learned Judge in the miscellaneous proceedings, the appellant filed an application under order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC read with Section 151. The executing court, in view of the order passed by the Reference Court in Misc. No. 20 of 1987, allowed the application for impleading and permitted the appellant to come on record. The said order, along with the order passed by the Reference Court in Miscellaneous proceeding, was challenged in a revision petition before this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 129 and 259 of 1998. This Court allowed the revision petitions reserving liberty to the appellant to file an appeal against the award passed in favour of the original respondent before an appropriate Court. In these circumstances, the present appeal has come up.