Hanamantharaya S/o Narasappa Anehosur V. The Assistant Commissioner Sub-Division Bijapur and Land Acquisition Officer, Bijapur and Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Project, Bagalkot Road, Bijapur

WP/202438/2015

AI Insights

The case involves Hanamantharaya, a landowner, who sought to correct his father's name from Bheemappa to Narasappa in the land acquisition records after an error persisted unnoticed during the proceedings of LAC No.5/2010. The Reference Court had dismissed his application for correction as belated, which led to the filing of this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court found that the correction did not disadvantage other claimants and directed the amendment to be made, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and accuracy in legal documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799239 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A SYED HABEEB
• Assessee Lawyers: H R MALIPATIL
• Keywords: Land Acquisition; Reference court; Writ of Certiorari; Correction of Name; Disbursement of Compensation
• Section: 151; 226; 227

Judgement Text

"- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.202438/2015 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: HANAMANTHARAYA S/O NARASAPPA ANEHOSUR AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O KAVADIMATTI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST. BIJAPUR. .... PETITIONER (BY SRI H.R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB-DIVISION BIJAPUR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BIJAPUR – 586 101. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECT, BAGALKOT ROAD, BIJAPUR – 586 101. .... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A. SYED HABEEB, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MUDDEBIHAL DATED - 2 - 18.02.2015 ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING CORRECTION OF HIS FATHER’S NAME IN LAC NO.5/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE ‘C’ CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks. 2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.02.2015 passed in LAC No.5/2010. 3. The petitioner is one of the land losers in respect of the reference which was made to the Reference Court and registered in LAC No.5/2010. While indicating the details of the petitioner in the said petition, though the name of the petitioner was correctly mentioned, it was shown as son of Bheemappa instead of son of Narasappa. 4. The error which had occurred in the description of the petitioner in the said reference petition had remained unnoticed throughout and the reference petition has ultimately been disposed of by enhancing market value. - 3 - Subsequently, when the amount was deposited and the disbursement was to be considered, the error was noticed by the petitioner and an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was made seeking to correct the description in that regard. The Reference Court by the order impugned has dismissed the application since it has been filed belatedly and indicating that at that stage the Reference Court cannot effect the correction. 5. In a matter of the present nature, what is necessary to be considered is as to whether the petitioner by seeking such correction would be taking any undue advantage to the detriment of the other land losers in the said proceedings. If that be the position, while taking note of the present claim as made by the petitioner,, the interest of the other land losers is also to be kept in view and in that background the case of the petitioner requires consideration. 6. The school certificate produced at Annexure-D indicates the name of the petitioner as son of Narasappa. - 4 - Further, in the documents produced along with the memo dated 14.09.2015 it is seen that in the mutation proceeding which was effected at an undisputed point of time on 20.12.1974 the name of the father of the petitioner is referred as Narasappa. The PAN card issued by the income tax department also shows the name of the father of the petitioner as Narasappa. If that be the position, to the said extent, it would have to be accepted that the name of the petitioner was wrongly shown as Hanmantharaya S/o Bheemappa. 7. There is also a reason for such error having crept in. The uncle of the petitioner is known as Bheemappa and the son of the said Bheemappa is the second claimant indicated in the reference petition. If the said parties are already on record and if they do not have any objection with regard to the proper description of the name of the petitioner, certainly the request as made by the petitioner is required to be considered. - 5 - 8. Hence, the order impugned is set aside. The Reference Court is directed to permit the petitioner to amend the cause title by correctly indicating the name of the petitioner as Hanmantharaya S/o Narasappa in the records of the Reference Court in LAC No.5/2010. In addition, to protect the interest of the other claimants before disbursement of compensation which has been deposited before the Court below, the petitioner shall also file the affidavit of all the co-claimants indicating that they have no objection for disbursement of the petitioner’s share. In terms of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE swk "