CHAYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus to direct respondent 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23-7-2013 at Annexure-P to the petition and pay the compensation at the prevailing market rate. The respondents have acquired certain lands which includes the property bearing Survey No. 154 measuring 4 acres, Survey No. 157 measuring 4 acres and Survey No. 158 measuring 4 acres situate at Arishiankunte Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the said property. Since no award had been passed in favour of the petitioner relating to the said properties, the petitioner was before this Court on earlier two occasions in W.P. No. 40911 of 2003 disposed of on 21-11-2003 and W.P. No. 43919 of 2011 disposed of on 13-2-2012.

(2.) This Court, more particularly in the later of the two writ petitions, has arrived at the conclusion that this Court in any event cannot decide the right of the parties to receive compensation and therefore taking note of the fact that the proceedings in L.A.C. No. 191 of 2006 was pending before the Civil Court had disposed of the writ petition indicating that if the petitioner succeeds in L.A.C. No. 191 of 2006, such order would be executable decree and the same can be executed and at that point the KIADB will have to determine the compensation and pass the award in accordance with law. The proceedings in L.A.C. No. 191 of 2006 is concluded by the judgment dated 31-5-2012 by which it is declared that the claimant 1 therein, that is petitioner herein, is entitled for the compensation amount to be awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB.

(3.) The respondents 2 and 3 however contend that the said judgment passed in L.A.C. No. 191 of 2006 is essentially an ex parte judgment and therefore respondents 2 and 3 had filed a miscellaneous petition in Misc. No. 25 of 2013. The learned Counsel for the petitioner along with a memo dated 3-9-2014 has brought to the notice of this Court that the said case in Mis. No. 25 of 2013 was disposed of on 11-8-2014 and the contention urged by respondents 2 and 3 has been rejected. The learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would however contend that the miscellaneous petition has been disposed on the ground of limitation and presently respondents 2 and 3 have filed a miscellaneous appeal in No. 15041 of 2014 as brought to the notice of this Court by a memo dated 3-9-2014. The question therefore at present is, the nature of consideration to be made in this petition keeping in view the said developments.