The State of Mysore Vs. M. Srinivasa

.....is a nullity in the eye of law. the non-impleading of the beneficiary in the miscellaneous proceedings before the reference court has not caused any prejudice to the university (beneficiary) as the reference court has framed the contentious point regarding the period of limitation for its consideration. on facts, held, the right of the beneficiary is availed before the reference court by urging the plea regarding limitation, the parties adduced evidence on this aspect of the case and the finding recorded by the reference court is accepted. -- sections 23 & 54: acquisition of lands determination of compensation appeal by the beneficiary- cross objection by the land owners - held, having regard to the fundamental right guaranteed under articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the constitution of india, right of occupation carried on with agricultural operation for themselves are the rights to have a meaningful livelihood. the university, which is imparting education to thousands of students should be the protector of human rights of the citizens, instead it has taken untenable stand contending that the market price fixed causes hardship to it, which attitude of it shocks the conscience of this court. the owners have been waiting to receive just and fair compensation since 1971, like shabari waiting for sri ramas feet to touch to liberate her from the curse. even after a lapse of 37 years after acquisition of the lands, the university is reluctant to pay the fair and reasonable market value to the owners determined by the court urging all kinds of untenable and frivolous grounds in this appeal which is most unfortunate on the part of the beneficiary university. appeal dismissed with costs of rs.25,000/-. - the learned public prosecutor, that the orders were clearly erroneous and illegal. 4. it seems to me that this contention is clearly right. the orders impugned herein, therefore, are clearly unsustainable......prosecutor, that the orders were clearly erroneous and illegal. the contention urged is that the provisions of section 249. criminal procedure code would not be attracted to cases trouble by warrant procedure. his further contention is that if the accused could not be produced it was the duty of the magistrate to have proceeded under section 87 of the code.4. it seems to me that this contention is clearly right. section 249 cr.p.c. occurs in chapter xx of that code which has made provision for procedure to be followed in trial of cases trouble by summons proceedings. that chapter exclusively applied to such cases is made clear by section 241. cr.p.c. it cannot also be disputed that a case under section 380 i.p.c. is trouble by warrant procedure prescribed in chapter xxi of that code. in this view of the matter. it was not at all open for the learned magistrate to have exercised jurisdiction under section 249 of the code. the orders impugned herein, therefore, are clearly unsustainable.5. in the result, these petitions succeed and are allowed. the orders made by the learned magistrate in c.c. nos. 1946 to 1948/1971 and c.c. nos. 1949, 1964 and 1965/1971 are hereby set aside. the learned magistrate will now proceed to restore the said cases to file and dispose of them in accordance with law.