H. HALESHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17/7/2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.56832 of 2014, by which the petition was rejected, writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11.01.2013 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Shivamogga in LA Misc. No.10 of 2006 and for a direction to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in Misc. No.10 of 2006 on merits, in accordance with law.

(3.) It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.59 of Gopala village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas was the joint family property of petitioner and his elder brother H.Nagendrappa. His elder brother H.Nagendrappa was looking after the affairs of the joint family. The second respondent acquired the land for formation of Housing scheme under preliminary notification dated 28.08.1992 issued under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Act, 1987 (for short '1987 Act') and final notification under Section 19(1) of the 1987 Act on 30.07.1994. Award was passed by the second respondent on 22.08.1994, notice was issued on 10.10.1994. It is stated that the notice was served on the son of the petitioner's brother who was a minor. However, the brother of the petitioner accepted the award amount on 07.05.1999. It is asserted that after receipt of the award amount, the brother of the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short '1894 Act') seeking reference to the Competent Civil Court to determine the market value. It is stated that in spite of repeated requests, the authorities failed to make reference. In the meanwhile there was a suit instituted for partition which was settled and decree was passed on 24.09.2005. Thereafter the petitioner filed petition under Section 18(3)(b) of 1894 Act in Misc. No.10 of 2006. The said petition came to be rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Shivamogga by order dated 02.01.2013 on the ground that the petition filed under Section 18(3)(b) of 1894 Act is barred by time. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Civil Court was fully justified in rejecting the petition filed under Section 18(3)(b) of the 1894 Act as the same was filed beyond the prescribed period. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is in appeal.