YELLAMMA Vs. SHEKHARAPPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment dated 27. 07. 2005 in writ Petition No. 34992/2003. The appellant is the second respondent in the Writ Petition. The first respondent herein is the petitioner in the Writ Petition.

(2.) THE dispute relates to the claim for compensation in respect of 01 Acre 33 Guntas of land in Sy. No. 67/4 of Ballur Village, davanagere Taluk. The said land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and award was passed on 18. 12. 2002 awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 1,19,846/- in favour of the writ petitioner as the land stood in the name of the writ petitioner. When award notice under Section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act was sent to the writ petitioner, the appellant, who is a sister-in-law of the writ petitioner, filed an objection claiming half share in the award amount. The claim was based on a compromise decree passed in o. S. No. 1067/89 in the Court of Munsiff at Davanagere. Admittedly, the suit was filed by the husband of the appellant and the first defendant in the suit was the writ petitioner. The suit was for partition and was in respect of plaint 'a' and 'b' schedule properties. The properties mentioned in plaint 'a' schedule did not include the above mentioned land of 01 Acre 33 Guntas in Sy. No. 67/4. Plaint 'b' schedule was the amount of compensation awarded in L. A. C. Nos. 113/80,112/80 and 46/81. Thus, the Land Acquisition Cases admittedly did not relate to the above mentioned land of 01 Acre 33 Guntas in Sy. No. 67/4. Consequently, in the compromise decree passed in O. S. No. 1067/ 89, neither the land in Sy. No. 67/4 nor the compensation amount in respect of the said land was mentioned. Therefore, as per the compromise decree relied on by the appellant, she had no claim over the land. However, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Annexure-G order dated 25. 06. 2003 holding that the writ petitioner and the appellant are entitled to have share each in the compensation amount. Challenging Annexure-G Order, the first respondent filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and quashed Annexure-G Order dated 25. 06. 2003 passed by the Land acquisition Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single judge, the second respondent in the Writ Petition has filed this appeal.

(3.) WE have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government advocate.