Quick viewing(Text Mode)

In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

In the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013

PRESENT

THE HON' BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON' BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

WRIT APPEAL NO.1156/2013 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN

M MUNIRAJU S/O DODDAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/3, NEW BINNAMANGALA, , BANGALORE – 560 038. ... APPELLANT (BY Sri. M S VARADARAJAN & Sri.SANTHOSH, ADVS., )

AND

1. SMT KASTURAMMA @ KASTURI BAI, W/O R. BALAKRISHNA D/O DODDAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/6, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560038.

2

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB NO.10/A, 5 TH FLOOR, CHANDRA KIRAN BUILDING, , BANGALORE-560001

3. ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY S/O.M.THIMMA REDDY, MAJOR, R/AT VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE –560048.

4. D RAMARAJU S/O DODDAMARAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.19/3, NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038.

VENKATARAJU S/O DODDAMARAPPA DECEASED BY HIS L.R.S,

5. SMT.VENKATAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

6. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

7. NAGARAJA S/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

8. SRINIVASA S/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

3

9. BHOJA RAJA S/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

10. UMESH S/O LATE VENKATARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.68, NEW BINNAMANGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038.

11. UMASHANKAR S/O DODDAMARAPPA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.19/3, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560038.

12. THE TAHSILDAR K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK-5600048.

13. SMT. KANTHAMMA W/O RANGA REDDY, D/O DODDAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NO.59, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROS, S.P.EXTENSION, , BANGALORE-560 003.

14. SMT. SUESHEELAMMA W/O.MUNIMYALRAPPA, D/O DODDAMARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO.384,BEHIND CHURCH ROAD, KITHAGANUR COLONY, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE-560036.

4

15. S SAMPATH KUMAR S/O LATE ASHWATHAMMA, S/O DODDA MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/T NO.38/2, MES QUARTERS, AIR FORECE DOMESTIC CAMP MURGESHPALYA, HAL POST, BANGALORE-560017.

16. R ARUN KUMAR S/O LATE ASHWATHAMMA, D/O DODDA MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.36/1, 10 TH CROSS, INDIRAGANDHI STREET, UDYANAGAR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560016.

17. R JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN S/O LATE ASHWATHAMMA, S/O DODDA MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.726, II CROSS, MUNISWAMAPPA LAYOUT, ITC ROAD, RAMASWAMY PALYA, , BANGALORE-560033.

18. R RAGHUNANDAN S/O LATE ASHWATHAMMA S/O DODDA MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.623, MAHARAJA STREET, UDAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560016.

19. BALAJI S/O.N.SAMPANGI AND LATE PADMAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/4, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560038.

5

20. SMT. GOWRI W/O MUNIYAPPA D/O N.SAMPANGI AND LATE PADMAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/4, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANGAR POST, BANGALORE-560038.

21. ASHOK S/O SAMPANGI AND LATE PADMAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/4, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560038. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.VEERAPPA, AGA FOR R12)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.45743/2012(LA-KIADB) DATED 04/01/2013.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA .J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1. The order of the learned Single Judge dated

04.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.45743/2012 is the subject matter of this appeal. In the writ petition, the order of the Reference Court (II Additional City Civil Judge,

Bangalore) dated 25.09.2012 (Annexure-A) passed in LAC

No.121/2005 was assailed by the appellant. 6

2. The brief facts are as follows:

A reference was sought under Section 30 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to apportionment of compensation. During the recording of evidence, a document purporting to be a declaration or confirmation deed was sought to be shown to the witness with regard to identification of the signature of the witness. The said document was not permitted to be used in evidence i.e. for the aforesaid purpose. Being aggrieved by the ruling of the

Reference Court, the writ petition was preferred. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by stating that the grievance of the appellant could be agitated, in case the final order of the Reference Court is against the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.

4. At the outset, we find that the appeal filed under

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is not maintainable, as the order of the learned Single Judge is 7 one relating to Article 227 of the Constitution in exercise of his supervisory jurisdiction. In this regard, reliance could be placed on a Larger Bench decision of this Court in the case of TAMMANNA AND OTHERS vs MISS RENUKA AND

OTHERS (ILR 2009 KAR 1207) wherein, at paragraph 14, it has been held as follows:

“14. As a result no appeal would lie under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against the order of the Single Judge passed in exercise of the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of in the matter arising against an order made deciding an issue, passed by the Court subordinate to the High Court, in the course of a suit or other proceedings not finally disposed of, which is attracted by Section 115 CPC and is governed under Section 8 of the Karnataka High Court Act; and in all other matters which are not attracted by Section 115 CPC and not governed under Section 8 of the Act, an appeal would lie under Section 10(iv-a) against the order passed under Section 9(xii) of the Karnataka High Court Act read with Articles 226 and 227 of the and Rules 2(1), 26 and 39 of the Writ Proceedings Rules as well as Article 11(sa) to Schedule II to the 8

Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.”

5. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the appellant to seek any other appropriate remedy.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

bkv

Top View