NINGAPPA SIDDAPPA GARASANGI Vs. ADDL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 15th October, 2004 in LAC Appeal No. 125/1998 on the file of the IV Additional district Judge, Bijapur, confirming the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court dated 29th November, 1997 in LAC No. 138/1984 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bijapur.

(2.) THE grievance of the appellant in the instant second appeal is that, house property bearing VPC No. 122/a situate at Gani village at Basavan Bagewadi Taluk was notified and acquired by the State through the first respondent herein for public purpose, i. e. for submergence area of UKP at Narayanapura reservoir, vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition act, which was published in the Karnataka gazette on 12th August, 1982. The Special land Acquisition Officer, after considering the relevant material available on record, has passed the award on 30th June, 1983, fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,095. 75. The claimant No. 2-appellant herein is the brother of deceased shankreppa, who was claimant No. 1. It is the case of the appellant that, the said suit schedule property was a joint family property and the same was sold in the year 1978 in favour of one Sri. Amarappa, since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives as R2 (a) to (c) in the instant second appeal. The appellant being claimant No. 2 has filed the objections before the Land Acquisition officer claiming that, he is entitled for half share in the joint family property on the ground that, the said property has been purchased by his father in the year 1941 and that, his father had two sons by name Shankreppa-claimant No. 1 and Sri Nirgappa-claimant No. 2-appellant herein. In view of the dispute between the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter for adjudication before the ii Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Bijapur under Section 30 of the Karnataka land Acquisition Act. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has discussed the evidence of the parties elaborately at paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment and recorded a finding at paragraph 12, holding that, the objection filed by the appellant-claimant No. 2 is overlooked and that, the claimant No. 1 or the legal representatives of the deceased claimant No. 1, i. e. 1 (a) to (c)are entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the acquired house property. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment, the appellant herein-claimant No. 2 has filed the appeal in LAC. Appeal No. 125/1998 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, bijapur. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence exhaustively at paragraph 15 of its judgment and other relevant material available on file, has given a specific finding at paragraph 17 holding that, the legal representatives of the deceased claimant No. 1 are entitled to receive the enitire compensation amount of the acquired house property and thereby rejected the claim of the appellant herein and confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by both the Courts below, appellant herein felt necessitated to present the instant second appeal.

(3.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for appellant, sri Ashok R. Kalyana Shetty is that, both the courts below have committed grave error much less irregularity for the reason that, it is undisputed that, the property in question has been purchased by the late father of the appellant and the said property is a joint family property. He further submitted that, the said property has been notified in the name of the elder brother of appellant, he being the 'karta' of the joint family property and that, this fact has been completely overlooked toy both the courts below and both the Courts below have proceeded on the ground that, the deceased shankarappa, who is the brother of the appellant or his legal representative, is entitled to receive the compensation amount of the acquired property. The said reasoning given by both the Courts below cannot be sustained and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.