IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.100356/2016 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT.PRATIBHA PRABHAKAR SABNIS, AGE-77 YEARS, OCCUPATION: FARMER, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE: TURKEWADI, TALUK: CHANDGAD, DIST: KOLHAPUR-416507.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI S. B. BORKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND :

• 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA THROUGH SENIOR MANAGER, RAVIWARPETH BRANCH, BELGAVI-590001
• 2. BELGAVI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH COMMISSIONER,

Date of Judgment 07.02.2017 W.A. No.100356/2016 Smt.Pratibha Prabhakar Sabnis Vs.

Union Bank of India

ASHOK NAGAR, BELGAVI-590001 (BUDA).

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRIYUTHS SACHIN P. BICHU & AFSHAN A. SHABASHKHAN, ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI M. A. HULYAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, R/W. 27 OF WRIT PROCEEDCINGS, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.04.2016 IN W.P. NO.113734/2015, PASSED BY THIS COURT, AND TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO PAY LAND COMPENSATION AND RENT TOTAL AS AT 14.03.2016, RS.64,17,71,974/- WITHIN TWO WEEKS ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 15% P.A., TILL PAYMENT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Mr. S. B. Borkar, Adv. for appellant.

Mr. Sachin P. Bichu & Afshan A. Shabashkhan, Advocates for respondent No.1. M. A. Hulyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

• 1. Heard learned counsel.
• 2. This writ appeal has been filed against the

order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the learned Single

Judge in the W. P. No.113734/2015 Smt. Pratibha

Prabhakar Sabnis vs. Union Bank of India and Belagavi Urban Development Authority. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order under appeal, has held that the respondent – Belagavi Urban Development Authority ('BUDA', for short) has passed an award on 21.01.2016 awarding only a sum of Rs.68,852/- which compensation amount has been deposited by the respondent – BUDA before the Civil Court. The prayer made before the learned Single Judge, in the aforesaid petition, was however that the Union Bank of India, may be directed to transfer a sum of Rs.11,71,58,242/- to the account of the present petitioner. The learned Single also noted in the said order that without establishing the fact of any award passed by the respondent – BUDA for a sum of Rs.68,852/- only or for seeking reference to enhancement thereof the prayer as made before the learned Single Judge cannot be granted.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner before us also made the same submissions and urged before us that this Court can award the larger sum as prayed by him in the Writ Court before the learned Single Judge.

4. We are not impressed by the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant – petitioner and we do not think that the prayer as made before the learned Single Judge can be granted by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Unless the petitioner seeks his remedy against the award dated 21.01.2016 in accordance with law and the amount of compensation is enhanced by the appropriate Court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, no such direction as prayed by the petitioner before the learned Single Judge could have been granted by the learned Single Judge.

5. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the present writ appeal before us is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

hnm