SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 5476

- 1 -

MFA No. 104398 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 104398 OF 2022 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

GANGADARAYYA SANGAYYA KOTIMATH

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

1.

SMT. SUMANGALADEVI W/O GANGADARAYYA

KOTIMATH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOTIMATH

PETABANA 582116, TQ. LAXMESHWAR,

DIST.GADAG.

2.

SHIVAPRASAD S/O GANGADARAYYA

KOTIMATH, AGE. 49 YEARS,

OCC. PRIVATE WORK,

R/O. KOTIMATH PETABANA-582116,

TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG.

3.

SMT. SHRIDEVI D/O GANGADARAYYA

KOTIMATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOTIMATH

PETABANA 582116, TQ. LAXMESHWAR,

DIST. GADAG.

4.

SMT. CHAITANYADEVI D/O GANGADARAYYA

KOTIMATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KOTIMATH

PETABANA-582116, TQ. LAXMESHWAR,

DIST. GADAG.

- 2 -

MFA No. 104398 of 2022

5.

MAHESHWARI D/O GANGADARAYYA KOTIMATH

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

R/O. KOTIMATH PETABANA-582116,

TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG.

6.

CHANNAVEERAYYA SHADKSHARAYYA

KOTIMATH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSE HOLD,

R/O.LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK SHIRAHATTI, DSIT. GADAG.

7.

NANDAYYA SHANKRAYYA KOTIMATH

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. D. J. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

GADAG.

BASAVARAJ GOOLAPPA UPNAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

2.

SMT. PARVATI W/O BASAVARAJ UPANAL

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116, TQ. LAXMESHWAR,

DIST. GADAG.

3.

RAMESH S/O BASAVARAJ UPANAL

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG.

- 3 -

MFA No. 104398 of 2022

4.

SMT. NANDA W/O CHANNAPPA

DHARMAYATTA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG.

5.

MAHESH S/O BASAVARAJ UPANAL

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULURE

AND BUSINESS, R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG.

6.

PRAKASH GOOLAPPA UPANAL

AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC. PRIVAE WORK,

R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.

7.

PULAKESHI GOOLAPPA UPANAL

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK,

R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.

8.

SOMESH JAGADISH UPANAL

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,

R/O. LAXMESHWAR-582116,

TALUK. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI LAXMANA T.MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6 & R8:

SHRI S.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE AND

SHRI MAHANTESH R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7:

AGA FOR R1)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION

ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

26.09.2022 PASSED IN LAC.NO.1/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST

CLASS, LAXMESHWAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF

RS.12,20,184/- TO APPELLANTS NO.1 TO 7.

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

- 4 -

MFA No. 104398 of 2022

Though this matter is listed for hearing on

interlocutory application for vacating stay and for

admission,

with

consent

of

learned

counsel

for

parties, it was heard and taken up for final disposal.

Challenging order dated 26.09.2022 passed

by

Senior

Civil

Judge

&

JMFC.,

Laxmeshwar

in

LAC.no.1/2018, this appeal is filed.

Appellants

no.1

to

5

herein

-

legal

representatives of deceased respondent no.5, joined

by respondents no.6 and 7 (would be collectively

referred to as ‘appellants’); while respondents no.1

herein was petitioner no.1 and respondents no.2 to 5

herein were petitioners no.2 to 5 (collectively referred

to as ‘respondents’) after being transposed from

respondents no.1 to 4 as petitioners no.2 to 5, before

Reference Court.

Brief facts as stated are that land measuring

no.2033.61 sq.ft. out of CTS no.5239 of Petaban

village,

(hereinafter

referred

to

as

‘acquired

- 5 -

property’ for short) was acquired by SLAO and

Assistant

Commissioner,

Gadag,

for

purpose

of

widening of Lakshmeshwar NH-73. Said proceedings

ended in drawing of consent award for Rs.12,20,184/-

in favour name of Upanal Goolappa Fakkirappa. After

objections

were

filed

by

respondent

no.5

-

Gangadharaiah Sangaiah Kotimath and noting rival

claims for compensation, matter was referred to Civil

Court under Section 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act.

Aggrieved

by

impugned

order

passed

in

said

proceedings rejecting claims of appellants, this appeal

is filed.

Sri D.J.Naik, learned counsel for appellants

submitted that in year 1950, appellant’s grandfather

Shivanandaiah Kotimath (hereinafter referred to as

‘Kotimath’ for short) sold extent of 38 guntas 2 annas

comprised

in

Sy.no.86/2B/1A

and

86/2B/1A/2

of

Petaban village totally measuring 38 guntas in favour

of Malleshappa Fakkirappa Mahantshettar (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Mahantshettar’ for short). It was

submitted that thereafter said Mahantshettar sold

- 6 -

same to Ramappa Bharamappa Mulgund (hereinafter

referred to as ‘Mulgund’ for short) and Goolappa

Fakkirappa

Upanal

(hereinafter

referred

to

as

‘Goolappa’ for short) under registered sale deed

dated 28.12.1959. However, purchasers concocted

sale deed dated 06.09.1980 showing that they had

purchased land measuring 17 guntas 2.3/4 annas of

suit property. Claiming said land said to have got

converted

for

non-agricultural

purposes

and

CTS

no.5239 is formed out of said land, laid claim for

compensation in respect of suit property. It was

submitted that land bearing CTS no.5239 totally

measuring 31 guntas 2.3/9 annas continues to be

agricultural

land.

Therefore

same

was

not

one

belonging to respondents. Therefore appellants were

entitled

for

compensation.

But

without

proper

consideration of above facts, reference Court passed

impugned order. Therefore, same requires to be set

aside.

On other hand, Sri S.S. Patil and Mahantesh

R Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.7

- 7 -

and

Sri

Laxman

T.

Mantagani,

learned

counsel

appearing for respondents no.2 to 6 and 8 submit that

land bearing Sy.no.86 of Petaban village originally

measuring 2 acres 20 guntas was purchased by P.T.

Manvi and brothers (hereinafter referred to as ‘Manvi

brothers’ for short) and grandfather of appellants of

Shivanandayya

Kotimath

jointly

under

sale

deed

dated 15.12.1971 from one Laxman Lingu Kulkarni,

it’s earlier owner. Out of total extent of 2 acres 20

guntas,

5

guntas

was

gifted

to

Municipality

for

formation of road. Remaining 2 acres 15 guntas was

partitioned between Kotimath and Manvi brothers,

wherein extent of 1 acre 9 guntas was allotted to

share of Kotimath and 1 acre 6 guntas was retained by

Manvi

brothers.

Said

partition

of

year

1949

is

evidenced by Ex.P.32 M.E.s no.199, 200 and 201.

Thereafter Kotimath sold an extent of 8 guntas to

Manvi brothers. Thus extent retained by Kotimath was

1

Acre

1

guntas.

Thus,

Sy.no.86

came

to

be

renumbered as 86/1, 86/2A and 86/2/1 respectively.

Thereafter

under

sale

deed

dated

25.03.1950,

- 8 -

Kotimath along wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top