Union of India and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

- karnataka high court act, 1961.[k.a. no. 5/1962]. section 9: [k.l.manjunath & b.v. nagarathna, jj] powers of a single judge under reference to division bench held, single judge would get jurisdiction to refer the matter to division bench provided the matter falls under any of the clauses of section 9 of the act. none of the clauses under section 9 of the act is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. on facts held, suit for permanent injunction was dismissed on the ground that the land in question has been acquired by the state. the trial judge has relied on the supreme court judgment to dismiss the suit as not maintainable. when the law is laid down by the supreme court, it is not open to the single judge to refer the matter to the division bench to decide the question of law. question involved in the suit was whether the suit was maintainable or not in view of the acquisition of the land in question by the bda, which point is squarely covered by the supreme court judgment, the question of referring the matter to the division bench does not arise. in addition to that, the single judge has not formulated the question of law which requires consideration by the division bench. further, a judge dealing with second appeal under section 6 of the act may refer the matter to division bench if he is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in the case. but such a discretion is not given to a single judge who deals with a regular first appeal under section 5 of the act. hence, reference is bad in law. - 75,530/-.as such this amount is well-within jurisdiction of the district judge......347/1 situated in navbad, bidar district were acquired for the benefit of the appellant vide final notification dated 6-8-1987. the land acquisition officer awarded the compensation of rs. 9,600/- per acre. the claimant filed an application under section 18(1) of the land acquisition act seeking for enhancement of the compensation. as such the civil judge, bidar now has passed the judgment and decree on 10-11-1995 in lac no. 346 of 1991 enhancing the compensation to rs. 43,000/-, being aggrieved by this, the petitioners herein approached the district judge. the learned district judge has returned the appeals with a direction to present it before the proper court on the ground that he has no jurisdiction.3. according to mr. haranahalli, learned counsel for the petitioner the jurisdiction of the district judge is up to one lakh, as such there is an error in returning the appeal filed by the petitioners.4. on the other hand mr. manikappa patil, learned counsel for respondent 2 submits that the amount claimed as a whole is to be taken for the purpose of jurisdiction. he also relied upon the decision in the case of k. malkoji rao alias kapathappa v assistant commissioner and land aquisition officer, bellary .5. it is pertinent to note that the respondent 2 has not preferred any appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award. on the other hand, the petitioners have approached the district judge for rectification. the amount awarded as compensation is rs. 43,000/- per acre along with solatium and other benefits, it comes to rs. 75,530/-. as such this amount is well-within jurisdiction of the district judge. the submission of mr. manikappa patil would have been accepted if respondent 2 had preferred an appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award. the distinction can be made on this basis. as such no hardship, irreparable loss or illegality shall be committed if the district judge disposes of this appeal. hence, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to.....