Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1984 DIGILAW 395 (KAR)

B. v. SAROJAMMA VS SPL. L. A. O. , BANGALORE

1984-12-18

MURALIDHARA RAO

body1984
MURALIDHARA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants in this appeal are the claimants in case No. LAC 338 of 1978 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE Special Land Acquisition Officer, baagalore (to be shortly called the 'l. A. O. ') acquired 2 acres 3 guntas of land in survey No. 39 of Vijanapura village, k. R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The compensation awarded for this acquired land comes to in all Rs. 40,566-25 ps. After the compensation was so awarded, several claimants, including the appellants, put-forth their claim for the apportionment of the compensation. The 2nd respondent (3rd claimant) viz. , B. M. Narayanaswamy, claimed that the entire amount should be given to him; whereas the appellants claimed 1/27 and 2/27 share, in the compensation so awarded, respectively. The learned Civil Judge, by his order dated 31. 3. 1979, negatived the claim of the appellants and held that the 2nd respondent B. M. Narayanaswamy was entitled to the entire compensation. This was an ex-parte order so far as the claim of the appellants are concerned. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed M. A. No. 23 of 1979 before the District Judge, bangalore. As stated above, the appellants claim was 1/27 and 2/27 share respectively in the compensation. The said claim, in terms of money, conies to Rs. 1300 and rs. 3000/- respectively. Before, the District judge, an objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that for purposes of deciding forum of the appeal, it is the entire compensation amount and not the claimants share that has got to be taken into account; in terms of Section 19 of the Karnataka Civil Courts act, 1964 (to be shortly called the 'civil courts Act') an appeal lies to the High court and not to the District Court. This argument found favour with the learned district Judge. The learned District Judge, held that since the compensation awarded is Rs. 40,566-25 Ps. notwithstanding the value of the claim putforward by the claimants, it is the value of the award viz. , the entire compensation that decides the forum of the appeal. Thus holding, he has returned the appeal papers for presentation to proper Court. It is the correctness the validity of this order that is challenged in this appeal. 40,566-25 Ps. notwithstanding the value of the claim putforward by the claimants, it is the value of the award viz. , the entire compensation that decides the forum of the appeal. Thus holding, he has returned the appeal papers for presentation to proper Court. It is the correctness the validity of this order that is challenged in this appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned District Judge, has relied upon the Judgment of this Court report in k. MALKOJI RAO ALIAS KAPATHAPPA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND l. A. O. BELLARY (1977-1 Kar. L. J. 173 ). The counsel for respondent drew my attention to the following sentence in the reported judgment, which reads thus:"what determines the forum of appeal is not the amount in dispute but the amount or value of the subject matter of the proceedings before the Civil Judge's Court". However, in the very judgment the following observations of the learned Judge is found thus:"the amount claimed by the claimant is the value of the subject matter in a Land acquisition reference. If such an amount exceeds Rs. 20,000/-, then an appeal lies to the High Court and not to the District court, notwithstanding the fact that the enhancement decreed by the Court of Civil judge, is less than Rs. 20,000/-". In the above extracted portion, the words "proceedings before the Civil judge," is clarified by the words "the amount claimed by the claimant is the value of the subject matter in L. A. reference. " there is nothing, in the above decision, which holds that, the entire amount of compensation and not the claimed portion, would be the subject matter to determine the forum of appeal. The learned judge, was dealing with the case under sec. 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (to be called the 'act' ). This is a case under section 30 of the Act. Further, it has to be seen that Section 30-A of the Act, makes the legal position very clear. Section 30-A of the Act, reads thus:"30-A APPORTIONMENT OF COMPEN- sation:- (1) Where there are several persons interested in the amount of compensation, the Court shall apportion the amount according to the interest of each such person, and shall specify in the award the amount due to each person. Section 30-A of the Act, reads thus:"30-A APPORTIONMENT OF COMPEN- sation:- (1) Where there are several persons interested in the amount of compensation, the Court shall apportion the amount according to the interest of each such person, and shall specify in the award the amount due to each person. (2) Each such person shall be entitled to obtain execution of the award to the extent of the amount due to him without the consent or concurrence of the other persons. " (Underlining supplied) section 30-A of the Act, makes it clear that in case of apportionment each claimant gets a separate decree to the extent of his interest and it is only that part of that decree granted in his favour that he will be able to execute it. In otherwords, if the claimant claims a portion in the entire amount so awarded under Section 18 of the act, his interest will be carved out in the decree to be granted under Section 30-A of the Act. It is the said decree which is executable and which should be the subject matter of the appeal, if the claimant is dissatisfied against the said decree. Therefore the grant or refusal of the prayer under section 30 of the Act, confines itself to the extent of the interest claimed by the claimant. If that be so, it becomes clear that so far as the claim of the claimant is concerned, his interest is confined to the claim made by him for purposes of apportionment under Section 30-A of the Act. ( 4 ) SECTION 54 of the Act, makes the decrees passed under the Act, appeallable. Therefore, the decree that is contemplated under Section 54 (1) of the Act, is the decree that is passed under Section 30-A of the Act, in matters of apportionment. If that be so, it is the interest of the claimant that becomes the subject matter of appeal under Section 54 (1) of the Act. ( 5 ) A Division Bench of the Madras hight Court in VENKATA REDDI vs. ADINARAYANA (AIR 1929 Madras 351) has made the position clear with the following observation:"after a reference under S. 30 is made to the civil Courts, the decision of the court cannot be regarded as an award under Part 3 of the Act. ( 5 ) A Division Bench of the Madras hight Court in VENKATA REDDI vs. ADINARAYANA (AIR 1929 Madras 351) has made the position clear with the following observation:"after a reference under S. 30 is made to the civil Courts, the decision of the court cannot be regarded as an award under Part 3 of the Act. In the case reported in Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao (AIR 1922 P. C. 80 - 45 mad. 320 - 49 LA. 129 (P. C.), their lordships of the Privy Council observe that there are two perfectly separate and distinct forms of procedure contemplated under the Act and where there is a dispute as to the relative rights of the persons together entitled to the money the duty of the Collector is: "to place the money under the control of the Court, and the parties then can proceed to litigate in the ordinary way to determine what their right and title to the property may be. How the proceedings were commenced is a matter that is not material, provided that they were instituted in the manner that gave the Court jurisdiction, for they ended in a decree made by the High Court and appealable to this board. "these observations show that a decision on a reference under S. 30 was regarded as a decree and not so award as then understood, and it attracted all the usual consequences of an appeal to the High court and a further appeal to the Privy council like all decrees of Subordinate courts. The view taken there was that it was a decree governed by Civil P. C. and the Civil Courts Act. If so, the subject matter of the Us being only Rs. 1,349, the appeal from the Subordinate Judge does not lie to the High Court but only to the district Court, because, the value is less than Rs. 5,000/ -. This was the view taken by our brotheis, devadoss and Jackson, JJ. in Mahalinga kudumban vs. Theetharappa Mudaliar (AIR 1922 Mad. 223 ). " therefore the distinction drawn between the value of the award under Section 18 of the Act and the value of the subject matter under Section 30 of the Act is quite distinct and is made clear from the above observation. in Mahalinga kudumban vs. Theetharappa Mudaliar (AIR 1922 Mad. 223 ). " therefore the distinction drawn between the value of the award under Section 18 of the Act and the value of the subject matter under Section 30 of the Act is quite distinct and is made clear from the above observation. ( 6 ) IF that be so, it is clear that in the instant case, since the claimants claim in terms of money was only Rs. 1500/- in the case of first claimant and Rs. 3000/- in the case of 2nd claimant, the appeal against the order of the Civil Judge in refusing their claim petitions would lie to the district Judge alone, as the claim was less than Rs. 20,000/ -. The subject matter of the claim for purposes of deciding the jurisdiction of the appellate Court should be the portion of compensation claimed by him in the apportionment proceedings. In my view, therefore, there is nothing in the judgment rendered by this Court in 1977 (1) kar. L. J. page 173, which takes the contrary view. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the appeal was rightly filed before the district Judge at Bangalore. Therefore, the impugned order returning the appeal memo for being presented to the proper court cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The District judge, Bangalore, is directed to hear and dispose of the appeal in M. A. 23 of 1979 on merits in accordance with the law. No costs. --- *** --- .