NEELAGANGABAI AND ANR. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 03-05-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NEELAGANGABAI AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
MAY 3, 1990 
B 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
c 
D 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Sections 18 and 20 (As (lpplicable 
to State of Karnataka)-Land Acquisition-Compensation-Reference 
to Court~Determination of reference without notice to authority for 
whom acquisition was made-Validity of. 
Consequent to the acquisition of t!ie appellant's land for meeting 
the requirements of the respondent-Corporation, a reference was made 
to the Civil Court, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 
wh1cn was determined without notice to the respondent-Corporation, 
and by allowing higher compensation to the appellants. 
The State preferred an appeal against the decision of the Civil 
Court which was dismissed 
and the respondent-Corporation's 
intervention in the appeal was not allowed. 
Thereafter the respondent-Corporation filed a writ petition 
E challenging the validity of the Civil Court's judgment. The High Court 
set aside the award of compensation and directed the Civil Court to 
re-open the proceedings. 
Dismissing the appellant's appeal, this Court, 
JI' 
HELD: 1. In view of the clear language used in clause (c) of 
section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 there cannot be any doubt 
that the respondent-Corporation was entitled to be heard before the 
reference could be determined. [22H] 
Himalayan Tiles and Marbles (P) Ltd. v. Francis Victor 
G Coutinho, (1980] 3 SCR 235, referred to. 
2. The land was acquired for the purpose of the respondent-
Corporation, and the burden of payment of compensation is on the 
Corporation. Therefore, the High Court's view that it was mandatory 
for the Court of reference to have c_aused a notice to be served on the 
H respondent-Corporation is correct. Non-service of notice deprived the 
20 
... - : 
-( 
-....-
\ 
NEELAGANGABAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (SHARMA, J.I 
21 
Corporation of an opportunity to place its case before the Court, and 
>-
the judgment so rendered in the reference case was illegal and not 
. binding on the respondent-Corporation. (220-E] 
3. The High Court's direction to the Civil Judge to re-open 
the proceedings and decide the matter afresh after giving the 
Corporation a chance to lead its evideuce on the question of valuation 
is confirmed. [23B] 
. ., 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1561 
of 1988 . 
. From the Judgment and OrclPr dated 4.3.1987 of the. Kamataka 
High Coun in W.P. No. 10292 of 1980. 
N.D.B. Raju and N. Ganpathyfor the Appellant. 
Mohan Katarki, Rajeshwar Thakur, Ms. C.K. Sucharita and 
P.R. Ramasesh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 4.3.1987 in W.P. No. 
1 
10292 of 1980 filed by the respondent No. 3, Hubli Dharwar Municipal 
' 
Corporation, setting aside an award made under the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1897 in respect of the compensation payable to the present appel-
lants and directing to re-open the proceeding before the civil court on 
-='.' 
a reference under s. 18 of the Act, for fresh· disposal in accordance 
~ 
with law. The appellants were the owners of the land in question. In a 
, 
proceeding under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, 
the appellants were held to be having surplus land, which by virtue of 
,J.... the provisions of the Act vested in the State Government. However, 
before the publication of the aforesaid declaration in the official 
gazette, steps for acquisition were taken for meeting the requirements 
of the respondent-Corporation. The appellants thus escaped the con-
sequences of the declaration made under the Ceiling Act, and became 
entitled to the compensation payable in accordance with the provisions 
of the Land Acquisition Act. Steps were accordingly taken for 
determination of the compensation, and on an application by the 
,,--\ 
appellants under s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, reference was 
made to the civil court. 
2. It is common ground that after the case was received ·by the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{1990] 3 S.C.R. 
A civil court on reference, no notice was issued to the respondent-
Corporation. The court did not, however, proceed to take evidence 
~ 
and record its own findmg on the valuation, as it was conceded on 
behalf of the State Government that the market value of the land could 
be calculated at the rate of Rs.3,800 per 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.