1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH

ON THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

WRIT PETITION NO.201144 OF 2018 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHRI MANIK PRABHU SAMSTHAN

MANIKNAGAR, TALUK HUMNABAD

DISTRICT: BIDAR

BY ITS SECRETARY

SHRI ANAND RAJ MANIK PRABHU

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SACHIN M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT

BHIMRAYAN GUDI

SHAHAPUR TALUKA

DISTRICT: YADGIR – 585 223

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, YADGIR

YADGIR – 585 201

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.M. GHATE, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR

ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND

QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED BY THE

LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND M.A.C.T. AT SHAHAPUR IN

LAC NO.10 OF 2009, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY

2

ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER

SECTION 152 OF CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice

for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner filed an application under Section

152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short) before

the Land Acquisition Court on the basis that Section 31 of

the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’) has been

wrongly typed instead of Section 30 of the Act. The Court

below, by the impugned order has rejected the said

application. Hence, this petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

the order of the Court below is bad in law and liable to be

set aside. That, the typing error requires to be corrected.

4.

The same is disputed by the respondents.

3

5.

On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the

considered view that appropriate relief is called for.

6.

The application under Section 152 of CPC has

been filed seeking correction of a typing error from Section

31 to 30. It is apparently a typing mistake. The Court

below took a very technical view and rejected the same.

The same is inappropriate.

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order

dated 29.01.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and

M.A.C.T. at Shahapur in LAC No.10 of 2009 is set aside.

I.A. No.1 filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner is

permitted to carry out the correction and insert Section 30

of the Act instead of Section 31 of the Act.

Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted

to file a memo of appearance in four weeks.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG