Gangawwa Rep. P.A. Holder, Ulavappa Vs. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1106273
CourtKarnataka Dharwad High Court
Decided OnFeb-28-2013
Case NumberMiscellaneous First Appeal No. 23717 of 2012 (LAC)
JudgeA.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
AppellantGangawwa Rep. P.A. Holder, Ulavappa
RespondentThe Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another
Excerpt:
(prayer: respondents this miscellaneous first appeal is filed under section 54(1) of the la act against the judgment and award dated 18-07-2011 passed in lac.no.87/2010 on the file of senior civil judge, bailhongal, partly allowing the reference petition for compensation and seeking enahancement of compensation.) 1. heard shri k. anand kumar, learned advocate for the appellant and perused the appeal memorandum. 2. this appeal was filed on 14.08.2012 with defects, by paying nominal court fee of rs.15/- as against rs.4,170/-, in terms of the valuation slip annexed to the appeal memorandum. dcf of rs.4,170/- was paid on 18.02.2013. the appellant has sought enhancement of compensation at the rate of rs.3,00,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits. the land acquired was 32 guntas. reference court has awarded rs.2,48,000/- per acre. enhancement sought in this appeal is rs.41,000/- per acre i.e., over and above the one awarded by the reference court. the total enhancement of compensation claimed by the appellant in this appeal is rs.65,596/- only, as is clear from the valuation slip. 3. in the circumstances, the value of subject matter of the appeal being rs.65,596/- only, there is wrong presentation of this appeal in this court. learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment in the case of indian council of agricultural research vs. varija, 2011 air kar r-2-73 and submitted that the appeal is maintainable in this court. 4. having regard to the facts noticed supra, in my opinion, the said decision has no application, since the value of the subject matter of the appeal is, the one shown in the valuation slip and the actual amount of compensation claimed in the appeal memo. the claim having now been restricted by the appellant in this appeal, to rs.65,596/- only, this appeal ought to have been filed in the district court at belgaum. for want of pecuniary jurisdiction the appeal in this court is not maintainable. consequently, registry is directed to return the appeal memorandum to the learned advocate for the appellant on or before 23.03.2013, to present the same before the district court at belgaum, within a period of one week from the date of obtaining of the return of the appeal memorandum. the district court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, when presented, on its merit. ordered accordingly.
Judgment:

(Prayer: Respondents this miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 54(1) of the La Act against the Judgment and award dated 18-07-2011 passed in Lac.No.87/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, partly allowing the reference petition for compensation and seeking enahancement of compensation.)

1. Heard Shri K. Anand Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant and perused the appeal memorandum.

2. This appeal was filed on 14.08.2012 with defects, by paying nominal Court fee of Rs.15/- as against Rs.4,170/-, in terms of the valuation slip annexed to the appeal memorandum. DCF of Rs.4,170/- was paid on 18.02.2013. The appellant has sought enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per acre along with all statutory benefits. The land acquired was 32 guntas. Reference Court has awarded Rs.2,48,000/- per acre. Enhancement sought in this appeal is Rs.41,000/- per acre i.e., over and above the one awarded by the Reference Court. The total enhancement of compensation claimed by the appellant in this appeal is Rs.65,596/- only, as is clear from the valuation slip.

3. In the circumstances, the value of subject matter of the appeal being Rs.65,596/- only, there is wrong presentation of this appeal in this Court. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research vs. Varija, 2011 AIR Kar R-2-73 and submitted that the appeal is maintainable in this Court.

4. Having regard to the facts noticed supra, in my opinion, the said decision has no application, since the value of the subject matter of the appeal is, the one shown in the valuation slip and the actual amount of compensation claimed in the appeal memo. The claim having now been restricted by the appellant in this appeal, to Rs.65,596/- only, this appeal ought to have been filed in the District Court at Belgaum. For want of pecuniary jurisdiction the appeal in this Court is not maintainable.

Consequently, Registry is directed to return the appeal memorandum to the learned advocate for the appellant on or before 23.03.2013, to present the same before the District Court at Belgaum, within a period of one week from the date of obtaining of the return of the appeal memorandum. The District Court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously, when presented, on its merit.

Ordered accordingly.