IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF MAY 2011

$\left{ \begin{array}{c} \text{max} \ \text{max} \end{array} \right} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \text{max} \ \text{max} \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{c} \text{max} \ \text{max} \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{c} \text{max} \ \text{max} \end{array} \right] \left[ \begin{array}{c} \text{max} \ \text{max} \end{array} \right]$

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM

CRP.No. 329 OF 2010 ALW MISC.CVL. NO.20106 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

• Mysore Urban Development $\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}}$ Authority Jhansi Laxmibal Road Mysore - 570 017 Represented by its Commissioner
• The Special Land Acquisition $\frac{m_{\rm S}}{m_{\rm H}}$ Officer Mysore Urban Development Authority Jhansi Laxmibal Road Mysore - 570 017 $\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}$

(By Sriyuths.P.S. Manjunath & Vivekananda Advs.)

AND

Smt. Boramina Aged about 70 years W/o Nantundappa Residing at door No.2692 II Cross, K.G. Koppa Mysore - 570 017

RESPONDENT

(By Srl. Mahesh R. Uppin, Adv.)

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{H}}$

Misc.Cvl. No. 20106 /2010 Is filed under Section 05 of the Limitation Act praving to condone the delay of 118 days in filing this Civil Revision Petition.

$\sim$ 2 $\approx$

This CRP filed under sec 151 of CPC, filed against $-19.03.2010$ $\mathbb{Z}^n \otimes$ order dated rassed in LAC No.716/2007 on the file of the Pri. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Mysore, allowing the petition filed under Sec. 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act.

This CRP a/w Misc. CvI. No. $20106/2010$ is coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

ORDER

The State is in revision against the order dated 19.03.2010 in LAC.No.716/2007 on the file of the Prt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mysore directing the petitioner herein to refer the award for adjudication by Court.

andra<br>Their Petition is belated by 118 days and application for condonation is filed and it has been posted after notice to respondent.

$\mathcal{L}^{\mathcal{M}{\mathcal{G}}}{\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{G}}}$ The delay in filing the petition is Heard. condoned. Misc.Cvl.20106/2010 is allowed accordingly. Petition is admitted and taken up for final disposal.

WANT OF KARNATAKA TIGT COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR

$\mathcal{L}$ From what is urged by the learned counsel representing the LAO and the reasons in the impugned order, the respondent filed an application under Section $18(3)(b)$ of the Land Acquisition Act seeking direction to the petitioners herein to refer the award for adjudication by Civil Court. Despite service of notice of the petition, neither the Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority, Mysore nor the Spi.Land Acquisition Officer (petitioners herein) entered appearance. Further, they failed to file counter to the petition averments. The petitioner examined her power of attorney holder Smt.Puttammanni as PW1 and 3 documents were marked. The statement on oath by Smt.Puttammanni infused confidence in Court to helieve that petitioner had no notice of award i.e., within six months of filing the petition. Reckoning the period from there, it was held that the petition under Section 18(3)(b) was filed within six months of the knowledge of the award and therefore, it was incumbent upon the LAO to refer the award to Court and the petition was allowed. Against which, this revision is filed. The only ground urged is that respondent

WINNIAM TIST COURT OF KARNAJAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU

$\mathcal{M} \mathcal{M}$

$\mathcal{S}^{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{M}}\mathcal{M}^{\mathcal{M}}$

Smt.Boramma had knowledge of the award and therefore, the patition is belated. It is the ground which is urged for the first time in this revision and no such plea was advanced before the trial Court. Since it is a virtually exparte order, the petitioners herein had benefit of applying to the Court to give them opportunity as is envisaged under provisions of Order IX of CPC which the petitioners have failed to do so. Instead, this revision is filed. No ground is made out under Section 115 of CPC calling for interference. Hence, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. If the petitioner State suffers any loss, it is up to it to recover from the LAO concerned.

$\bigvee_{i=1}^n \mathbb{E}[\mathcal{P}^{(i)}{\mathcal{M}{i+1}}]^{(i)} \to \mathbb{E}$

COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

$\mathbf{x} = \mathbf{y}$

$\sim$