STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MUNI REDDY ALIAS ABBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government and the Tahsildar are in appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9-6-2009 passed by the Court of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S. No. 956 of 2003. The Trial Court has granted compensation of Rs. 62,836/- in respect of the acquired kharab lands. There is a delay of 1583 days in filing this appeal. Smt. B.P. Radha, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submits that the file was misplaced for a period of two years, that is, between 2009 and 2011. On the retrieval of the file in 2011, the matter was referred to many sections including the legal section for examining the viability of filing the appeal. Thereafter, because of the elections to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Panchayat Raj Institutions and to the Assembly in 2013 and because of the preoccupations of the officers with the said elections, the file could not be attended to immediately. She submits that the concerned Tahsildars were also being transferred. Because of all these factors and circumstances, there is a delay of 4 years 3 months in filing this appeal.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai, 2012 AIR(SC) 1629 She read out first part of paragraph 17 from the reported decision. The same is extracted hereinbelow:

(3.) The learned Government Pleader complains of the non-joinder of necessary parties to the suit. As the beneficiary of the acquisition, namely, Bangalore Development Authority ('BDA' for short), is not made a party, the suit ought to have been rejected on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. She submits that the land in question is the land reserved for a public purpose. That it is a 'B' phot kharab land is evident from the award passed in L.A.C. No. 656/1986-87 (Ex. P.1). She submits that an erroneous judgment cannot be permitted to govern the field, only because the Government has not filed the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. She also complains of the non-compliance with the requirement of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. She submits that the Government has not received Section 80 notice. She also submits that the respondent's suit itself was hopelessly barred by limitation. The respondent never raised the issue of non-awarding of compensation for the kharab land at the earliest point of time and in the appropriate proceedings.