AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents. The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 28.1.2013 (Annexure-F) passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi (Reference Court) in L.A.C. No. 204/2007 on the three I.A.s. filed by the petitioners - for bringing the L.R.s on record, for setting aside the abatement and for the condonation of delay.
Heard, Sri Mallikarjun B. Ryakha, the learned counsel appearing for Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah, for the petitioners and Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The reference proceedings initiated for the determination of fair and just market value cannot be closed on account of default or on the ground of delay in making the L.R. application. In taking this view, I am fortified by the following authorities:--
(i) 1999 (2) KCCR 1129 - Chandramouli @ Chandrakant and another v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer.
(ii) AIR 1974 KAR 122 - M.S. Ramaiah and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.
(iii) Alihusain Abbahbai and Others Vs. Collector, Panch Mahats,
My perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Reference Court has passed it for three reasons--(a) the delay of 3 1/2 years is not cogently explained (b) another son of the deceased claimant, Sri Ravish is not one of the applicants and (c) the abatement order is not passed.
The L.R. application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and consequently the reference proceedings closed on the ground that the L.R. application is not filed within the prescribed period or that the delay is not satisfactorily explained. The delay has got to be condoned by imposing the necessary conditions. The ends of justice would be met by my condoning the delay of 3 1/2 years by imposing a rider that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the interest for the said period of delay.
As far as the Reference Court''s view that no abatement order is passed, it is to be stated that the abatement operates by the operation of law.
As far as Sri Ravish, one of the sons of the deceased claimant, not being one of the applicants is concerned, the petitioners'' learned advocate undertakes to file one more LA. on behalf of Sri Ravish.
In the result, I allow these petitions by passing the following order:-- (i) The Reference Court''s order, dated 28.1.2013 (Annexure-F) is set aside.
(ii)The three I.A.s in question stand allowed, but with the condition that should the petitioners succeed in getting the market value enhanced, they shall not be entitled to interest from 1.8.2009 (after the expiry of 90 days from the date of death of the claimant on 1.5.2009) till 6.12.2012 (date of making the three applications in question).
(iii) It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to interest for the period anterior to 1.8.2009 and posterior to 6.12.2012.
No order as to costs.