ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

WRIT APPEAL No.200055 OF 2021 C/W WRIT APPEAL No.200057 OF 2021 C/W WRIT APPEAL No.200056 OF 2021

In W.A.No. 200055/2021

BETWEEN:

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTRED OFFICE AT AHURA CENTER MAHAKALI VACES ROAD, ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA & HAVING ITS UNIT M/S. RAJASHREE CEMENT WORKS ADITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD TALUK : SEDAM DISTRICT: KALABURAGI - 585 222 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. MR. GERARD D RODERICKS

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI. PRAMOD.N.KATHAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RACHANA B.R. AND SRI. SACHIN.M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATES)

AND:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU - 560 001.

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

- 2 -

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

KAPANOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA

KUMNABAD ROAD

KALABURAGI - 585 292.

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

" KHANIJA BHAVAN" 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR

RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR

NAGENDRAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA PYATI

AGED MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE

RESIDENT OF UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY

LEGAL HEIRS

5(A) KALLAYANI S/O LATE VITTOBHA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. M/S. RAJSHREE

CEMENT EMPLOYEE, RESIDING OF

ADITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD

KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585 292.

5(B) BALU S/O LATE VITTOBHA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. M/S. RAJASHREE

CEMENT EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF

AGITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD

KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585 292.

5(C ) JAGANATH S/O LATE VITTOBHA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE

RESIDENT OF DIGGAON VILLAGE

CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED

BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

6(A) KALLAYANI S/O LATE VITTOBHA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. M/S. RAJSHREE

- 3 -

CEMENT EMPLOYEE, RESIDING OF

ADITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD

KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585 292.

6(B) BALU S/O LATE VITTOBHA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. M/S. RAJASHREE

CEMENT EMPLOYEE, RESIDENT OF

AGITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

6(C ) JAGANATH S/O LATE VITTOBHA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE

RESIDENT OF DIGGAON VILLAGE

CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

S/O NEELKANTAPPA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE

RESIDENT OF UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED

BY HIS LEGAL HEIR

8(A) AMRUTHA RAO

S/O BASAWANTHRAO PAYTI SIGDI

AGED MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE.

8(B) MALKAMMA W/O LATE DEVINDRAPPA PAYTI

AGED MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF 2/217, UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK

GULBARGA DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEZSED REPRESENTED

BY HIS LEGAL HEIR

MAREMMA W/O LATE MUNVEERAPPA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEWIFE

RESIDENT OF UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

9(A) HARISHCHADRA S/O HANMANTHAPPA

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) NEELAMMA W/O LATE HARISHCHANDRA

AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

R/O. UDGAI, TALUK : SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI

- 4 - ii) LALITABAI W/O SHIVASHANKAR KOTTARKI,

(D/O HARISHCHANDRA)

AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

R/O UDAGI, TALUK: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS

LEGAL HEIRS.

10(A) SHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE MALLAPPA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. COOLIE.

10(B) GOURAMMA W/O LATE MALLAPPA

AGED MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEWIFE

BOTH RESIDING, AT DIGGAON VILLAGE

CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN .C. BASAREDDY, HCGP FOR R-1, R-2, R-3 SRI. B.B. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (V.K. FILED) SRI. H. SURYAKANTH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7 IN C.P.NO. 30383/2021 SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL AND MISS. KIRAN SURI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.V. NISTY AND SRI. C.A.PATIL, ADVOCATES, VAKALATHS FILED FOR R-4, R-5(a), (b), (c), R-6(a), (b), (c), R-7, r-8(a), (b), R-9, R-10 (a), (b) , VK NOT FILED FOR R-9(a).)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO i) ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL & ii) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED: 26.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 203385/2018 AND ETC.

In W.A.No. 200057/2021

BETWEEN:

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTRED OFFICE AT AHURA CENTER MAHAKALI VACES ROAD, ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA & HAVING ITS UNIT M/S. RAJASHREE CEMENT WORKS ADITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD TALUK : SEDAM

- 5 - DISTRICT: KALABURAGI - 585 222 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. MR. GERARD D RODERICKS

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI. PRAMOD.N.KATHAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RACHANA B.R. AND SRI. SACHIN.M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATES)

AND:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU - 560 001.

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT

M.S. BUILDING

BENGALURU – 560 001.

KARNATAKA INDSUTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

KAPANOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA

KALABURAGI.

THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER

“ KHANIJA BHAVAN” 4TH EAST WING

RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001.

“ KHANIJA BHAVAN” 5TH FLOOR

EAST WING, RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001.

KALABURAGI.

AGED: 82 YEARS

R/O PLOT NO. 56, SHAHABAD ROAD

CHITTAPUR.

SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

- 6 -

a) PRAHALAD S/O BALKISHAN

AGE: 59 YEARS

OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS

R/O KALABURAGI.

b) DR. VIJAYKUMAR S/O BALAKISHAN

AGE: 57 YEARS

OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND MEDICAL PRACTICE

R/O CHITTAPUR.

C) CHANDA W/O BADRINARAYAN RATHI

AGE: 62 YEARS

OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BAGALKOT.

d) TARA W/O ASHOK ZAWAR

AGE: 55 YEARS

OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O ICHALKARANGI

(MAHARASHTRA).

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) ANIKETH S/O ASHOK ZAWAR

AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB

R/O ICHALKARANJI, MAHARASHTRA

(LR’S THROUGH ON RECORD AS PER ORDER

ON I.A. NO. 1 DATED: 10.04.2019)

W/O CHANDRAPPA YAKAPUR

(SINCE DECEASED)

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

a. MAHATAMMA D/O CHADRASHETTY

AGED: 60 EYARS.

b. SHARANAMMA D/O CHANDRASHETTY

AGED: 58 YEARS.

C. NAGARAJ S/O CHANDRASHETTY

AGED: 52 YEARS.

D. SHIVAKANTAMMA D/O CHANDRASHETTY

AGED: 46 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT AV-21/1,

ADITYANAGAR, MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUKA

- 7 -

KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585 292. 9. MANJU LAMBADA

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

a. PRATHAPSINGH S/O MANJU LAMBADA

AGE: 60 YEARS

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) TARA BAI W/O LATE PRATHAPSINGH

AGE: 59 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O NRUPATUNGA NAGAR, MALKHED TANDA

TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

ii) ANITABAI D/O LATE PRATAPSINGH

AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O NRUPATUNGA NAGAR, MALKHED TANDA

TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

iii) SAVITA MAHESHWARI W/O CHADNRASHEKHAR

AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB

R/O UNIVERSITY, SARSWATIPURAM COLONY

KALABURAGI.

b. LAXMAN S/O MANJU LAMBADA

AGED: 56 YEARS

BOTH RESIDING AT, STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

a. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O HARISHCHANDRA

AGE: 53 YEARS.

b. VEERENDRA S/O HARISHCHANDRA

AGED: 50 EYARS.

C. LAXMIBAI W/O BHIMA,

AGED: 53 EYAS

BOTH RESIDING AT, STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

- 8 -

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS a. BABURAO S/O SUBHASH

AGE: 60 YEARS.

b. NARASINGH S/O SUBHASH

AGED: 54 YEARS.

C. RAJKUMAR S/O SUBHASH

AGED : 45 YEARS.

D. SHANKAR S/O SUBHASH

AGED: 55 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDING AT, STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

a. KAMALABAI W/O LATE SHANKAR

AGED: 60 YEARS.

b. GANESH S/O LATE SHANKAR

AGED: 45 YEARS.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) NIRMALA RATHOD

W/O LATE GANESHR ATHOD

AGE: 43 YEARS.

OCC: AGRICULTURE.

R/O. MALKHED TANDA,

TQ: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI.

C. HEMANTH S/O LATE SHANKAR

AGED 43 YEARS.

d. RAVINDRA S/O LATE SHANKAR

AGED 41 EYARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT, STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

AGED: 48 YEARS

RESIDING AT, STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

- 9 -

KALABURAGI DISTRICT. 14. MOTIBAI W/O GUNDAPPA

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

KAMALABAI W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR

AGED: 50 YEARS

REISIDING AT, STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

SEETABAI D/O RAMAJI,

AGED 52 YEARS.

RESIDING AT, STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

a. MOHAMMAD MUSSAB S/O HYDERALI JAMADAR AGE 68 YEARS,

b. SHAMEEN BEGUM W/O MOHAMMAD USMAN AGE 51 YEARS,

c. ABDUL HAZEEZ S/O MOHAMMED USMAN AGED 35 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIMNAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT

- 10 -

SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

a. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O NAGAPPA JAMADAR AGED 50 YEARS,

b. PADMAVATI W/O CHANAPPA JAMADAR AGED 59 YEARS,

BOTH RESIDING AT , HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIMNAGAR) MALKHED ROAD , SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

b. CHANDRAKALA W/O SHANTAPPA AGED 42 YEARS,

BOTH RESIDING AT UDAGI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK KALABURAGI DIST.

AGED: 60 YEARS.

RESIDING AT HUDA –B VILLAGE(BHIMANAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S

a. TAHERA BEGUM W/O LATE DASTGIR

AGE: 61 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

AGED: 76 YEARS

RESIDING AT HUDA –B VILLAGE (BHIMANAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED Y HER LEGAL HEIRS.

a. RADHA BAI W/O PRABHU RAO

- 11 -

AGED: 63 YEARS. B. SHIVAJI S/O PRABHU RAO

AGED: 42 YEARS.

C. AMBOJI S/O PRABHU RAO

AGED: 40 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

HUDA – B VILLAGE (BHIMANAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

AGED: 42 YEARS

RESIDING AT UDAGI VILLAGE SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

MAREMMA W/O MUNINDRAPPA

AGED 42 YEARS, R/AT UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DIST.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

a. SABAWWA W/O BHIMASHA

AGED: 68 YEARS

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) BHIMASHANKAR S/O LATE. TIPPAYYA

AGED: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

b. RAJENDRAPPA S/O BHIMASHA

AGED: 66 YEARS.

c. DEVINDRAPPA S/O BHIMASHA

AGED: 58 YEARS.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUG LR’S)

i) CHANDAMMA W/O LATE DEVENDRAPPA ITAGI

AGED: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

- 12 - d. RAMAYYA S/O BHIMASHA

AGED 48 YEARS.

e. HANAMANTH S/O BHIMASHA

AGED 41 YEARS.

f. MUDDANNA S/O BHIMSHA

AGED 60 YEARS.

g. MALLAMMA W/O RAMANNA

AGED: 54 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT, HUDA-B VILLAGE

(BHIMANAGAR) MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

28 BHIMSHA S/O NARASAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) NUGAPPA S/O BHIMSHA AGED 64 YRS,

b) BHIMANNA S/O BHIMSHA AGED 63 YRS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIMANAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

29 BAGAPPA S/O YENKAPPA KOLANUR SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) YELLAMMA W/O MARIAPPA AGED 53 YRS,

b) YENKAPPA S/O BAGAPPA AGED 57 YRS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA -B VILLAGE (BHIMANAGAR) MALKHED

- 13 - ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

30) ABDUL RAHDEM S/O YAKUB ALI SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) NOORJA BEGUM W/O ABDUL RAHEEM AGED 51 YRS,

b) MOHD. HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL RAHEEM AGED 38 YRS,

c) MOHD. HASAN S/O ABDUL RAHEEM AGED 36 YRS,

d) MOHD. YOUNUS S/O ABDUL RAHEEM AGED 34 YRS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT: HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGARI MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

AGED 60 YEARS

RESIDING AT HUDA-B-VILLAGE (BHIMANAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

a. ABDUL SUKKUR S/O MOINUDDIN,

AGED: 66 YEARS.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) FAIMADABEGUM W/O SIKANDAR

D/O SUKUR MIYA

AGED: 45 YEARS.

OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

b. CHINUMIYA S/O MOINUDDIN

AGED: 68 YEARS

- 14 -

BOTH RESIDING AT, HUDA-B VILLAGE

(BHIMANAGAR) MALKHED ROAD,

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) MAHABOOB S/O LATE CHUUNUMIYA

AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

ii) MAIMOOD MIYA S/O LATE CHUUNUMIYA

AGED: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

iii) JARIN BEGUM W/O JAVID

D/O LATE. CHUUNUMIYA

AGED: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

ALL R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

a. PUTALIBEE W/O NABISAB,

AGED 52 YEARS.

b. ZAMEER S/O NABISAB,

AGED 36 YEARS.

C. SHABIRUDDIN S/O SHAMSUDDIN

AGED 64 YEARS.

ALL ARERESIDING AT, HUD

RESIDING AT HUDA-B-VILLAGE (BHIMANAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEAED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

a. MOHAMMED NASIR MIYA

S/O MOHAMMED KHAJA

AGED 64 YEARS.

b. ABDUL LRAZAK S/O MOHAMMAD KHAJA

AGED: 54 YEARS.

BOTH RESIDING AT, UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

- 15 -

a. KASHIRAOJ S/O HUSSAINAPPA

AGED: 59 YEARS.

b. SUSHILABAI W/O GURUPAD,

AGED: 56 YEARS.

C. BHIMRAYA S/O HUSSAINAPPA

AGED: 48 YEARS.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2/219,

UDAGI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) LAXMIBAI W/O NARASAPPA JAMADAR, AGED 38 YRS,

b) RAVIKUMAR S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA JAMADAR AGED 35 YRS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

37 MAHADEVAPPA S/O HANAMANTH JAMADAR HUDA AGED 86 YRS, RESIDING AT NO.17/5 HUDA -B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUKA, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) BASANNA S/O BHIMSHAPPA, AGE 53 YRS,

b) TULAJAMMA W/O NAGANNA AGED 52 YRS,

c) MALLAPPA S/O BHIMSHAPPA AGED 51 YRS,

- 16 -

d) SHARANAPPA S/O BHIMSHAPPA AGED 43 YEARS, ALL RESIDING AT NO.17/5 HUDA-B VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

39 SABANNA S/O HANUMANTHA TALWAR SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) LOKAPPA S/O SABANNA AGED 45 YRS,

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) SHARANAMMA

W/O LATE LOKAPPA

AGED: 44 YEARS: OCC: AGRICULTURE

ii) ESHWARAJ S/O LATE LOKAPPA

AGED: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

iii) SOMASHEKHAR S/O LATE. LOKAPPA

AGED: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

ALL ARE R/O UDAGI, TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

b) MALLAPPA S/O SABANNA AGED 43 YRS,

c) RAVINDRA S/O SABANNA AGED 38 YRS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.196 UDAGI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) SIDDAMMA W/O HAYALLI AGED 72 YRS,

- 17 - b) SUBANNA S/O HAYALLI AGED 44 YRS,

c) SANTOSH S/O HAYALLI AGED 38 YRS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.17/8 HUDA-B VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) SEETABAI W/O UMALA AGED 58 YRS,

b) SONIBAI W/O UMALA AGED 58 YRS,

c) NARASINGH S/O UMALA AGED 31 YRS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT SATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

42 SURESH S/O SOMLA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, SHANKAR S/O SUBASH CHAVAN AGED 55 YRS, RESIDING AT STATION TANDA MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

43 SHARANAPPA S/O YANKAPPA (BICCHAPPA) AGED 73 YRS, RESIDING AT 12-12 H (BHIMNAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

44 NINGAPPA ARGAL SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, a) MALLAMMA D/O NINGAPPA (W/O LAKSHAMAN) AGED 50 YRS,

b) SHARYRAPPA S/O NINGAPPA AGED 52 YRS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE

- 18 - (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

45 DEVAPPA ITAGI SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) ARJUNAPPA S/O DEVAPPA, AGED 68 YRS,

b) SHIVAMMA W/O DEVAPPA

c) KASTURIBAI W/O MARUTHI AGE 59 YRS,

d) SIDDAPPA S/O BEERAPPA AGED 21 YRS,

e) NAGAPPA S/O DEVAPPA AGED 75 YRS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

46 GHALAPPA S/O SABANNA AGED 80 YRS, RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRCT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

a. BASAVARAJJ S/O LATE. GHALAPPA

AGED: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

b. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE. GHALAPPA

AGED: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

C. RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE. GHALAPPA

AGED: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

d. GANGAMMA W/O LATE HANMANTHAPPA

AGED: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

ALL R/O KONGANDI, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIR.

- 19 - 47 SAIBANNA S/O GANGAPPA TALA LAKSHMI SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, SIDAPPA S/O SAIBANNA, AGED 42 YRS, RESIDING AT: YADAGIR TALUK, YADAGIR DISTRICT.

48 DODDA BHIMSHA S/O CHANDHAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, KAMALAMMA W/O DODDA BHIMASHA AGE.60 YRS, RESIDING AT CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

49 SANNA BHIMASHA S/O CHANDAPPA AGED 64 YRS, RESIDING AT CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

A. SABAWWA W/O LATE. SANNA BHIMASHA AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

50 SABAYYA S/O CHANDHAPPA AGED 58 YRS, RESIDING AT CHITTAPUR TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

A. TIMMAVVA W/O LATE. SABAYYA

AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O NASAR JUANG, CHITTAPUR

DIST: KALABURAGI.

a) TIPPAYYA S/O BHIMANNA AGED 37 YRS,

b) SHANKAR S/O BHIMANNA AGED 31 YRS,

- 20 - c) MALLIKARJUN S/O BHIMANNA AGED 28 YRS,

d) DEVENDRA S/O GURULINGAPPA AGED 37 YRS,

e) MALLAMMA W/O GURULINGAPPA AGED 57 YRS,

f) BASAVARAJ S/O HANUMANTHA AGED 59 YRS,

g) SHIVARAJ S/O NARASAPPA AGED 29 YRS,

h) NAGARAJ S/O NARASAPPA AGED 25 YRS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

52 TULSA S/O LAMBADA ANUBHAVADHART AGED 88 YRS, RESIDING AT NO.2/125 LAKSHMANTHANDA MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

53 SABAYYA S/O BHIMAYYA HUDA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) LAKSHMI W/O MARIAPPA AGED 53 YRS,

b) HANAMAWWA W/O SHIVARAYA AGED 64 YRS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 15/60 HUDA-B VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

54 SABAYYA S/O BHIMRAYA HUDA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

- 21 - a) BUDAPPA S/O SABAYYA AGED 63 YRS,

b) SABANNA S/O BHAGAPPA AGED 35 YRS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

58 IBRAHIMSAB S/O ISMAILSAB HUDA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) ABDUL HAMID S/O IBRAHIMSAB AGED 46 YRS,

b) RAHEMAN ALI @ MOHD. ABDUL RAHEMAN S/O IBRAHIMSAB, AGED 44 YRS,

- 22 - BOTH RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.16-75, HUDA-B VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

59 ABDUL REHMAN HUDA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, MOHAMMED MOULANASAB S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 68 YRS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 17-92, HUDA-B, VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

60 RAHMANBEE D/O MOHAMMAD MOULANSAB AGED 44 YRS, RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

61 BHIMSHAH SANNAVVA S/O SABAYYA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, DEVAMMA @ DEVAKI W/O LATE MAGHARAJ, AGED 63 YRS, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 18/58, HUDA-B VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) CHANNABASAPPA S/O SHIVARAYYA AGED 36 YRS,

b) MAHADEVI W/O SHIVARAYA AGED 66 YRS,

- 23 - c. SABAYYA S/O SHIVARAYA AGED 41 YRS,

RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.18/90, HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) SIDDAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGED 69 YRS,

b) CHANDRAMMA W/O RAMANNA AGED 65 YRS,

c) MALLAMMA W/O LAKSHMNA AGED 68 YRS,

d) SBANNA S/O BASAPPA AGED 63 YRS, RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) YALLAMMA W/O LATE. SABANNA ITAGI

AGED: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI.

64 GORIBEE W/O AHEMAD HUDA AGED 75 YRS, RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, EDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

65 ABDUL GAFOOR HUDA S/O KARIMSAB JAMADAR AGED 68 YRS, RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD,SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 24 - MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

67 MOHD. YOUSUF S/O CHITTASAB JAMADAR SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) PEERAMBEE W/O MOHD. YOUSUF, AGED 73 YRS, RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) MOHD. GOUSE S/O MOHD. CHITTASAB AGED 64 YRS,

b) MOHD. NOOR S/O MOHD. CHITTASAB AGED 77 YRS,

c) SHAREIFF UNRISA W/O MOHD MUSTAFA AGED 72 YRS, RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) DEVAMMA W/O SABANNA, AGED 72 YRS,

b) MALLIKARJUN S/O SABANNA AGED 37 YRS,

c) CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O SABANNA AGED 32 YRS,

d) KRISHAN S/O SABANNA AGED 29 YRS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA VILLAGE

- 25 - (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

70 THIPPANNA S/O CHANDAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,

a) BHIMAWWA W/O THIPPANNA, AGED 67 YRS,

b) KALLAPPA S/O THIPPANNA AGED 33 YRS,

c) DEVINDRAPPA S/O THIPPANNA AGED 31 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

A. RAJAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA

AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

a) DEVALI BAI W/O KISHAN SINGH AGE 65 YRS,

b) GORIBAI W/O MOHAN AGE 44 YRS, R/O STATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 26 - SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) SUBHADRAMMA W/O BASANNA, AGE.55 YRS

b) SEETAMMA W/O SAIBANNA AGE 51 YRS, BOTH RESIDING AT UDAGI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) RAMESHCHANDRA S/O NARAYANDAS LADDA AGED 60 YRS,

b) SURESHCHANDRA S/O NARAYANDAS LADDA AGED 58 YRS,

c) OMPRAKASH S/O NARAYNADAS LADDA AGED 50 YRS,

d) PREMALATHA W/O RAMESHWAR MANTRI AGED 65 YRS,

e) SRIKANTH KASATA S/O GOVINDALALA KASATE AGED 55 YRS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOTTALABASAVESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI.

a) NAGENDRAPPA S/O PANDAPPA PAYAK AGED 58 YRS,

- 27 - RESIDING AT DIGGAON VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI.

a) KALYANI S/O VITHOBHA AGE 55 YRS,

b) BALU S/O VITHOBHA AGE 8 YRS,

c) JAGANATH S/O LATE VITHOBA AGE.48 YRS

a) AMRUTHRAO S/O BASAVANTARAYA, AGE 57 YRS,

b) MALLAMMA W/O LATE DEVAR PYATI AGE 51 YRS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT DIGGAON VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI.

b) HARISHCHANDRA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE.68 YRS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DIGGAON VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) NEELAMMA W/O LATE. HARISHCHANDRA

AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD.

R/O UDAGI, TQ: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI.

- 28 -

ii) LALITABAI W/O SHIVASHANKAR KOTTARKI

(D/O, HARISHCHANDRA)

AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

R/O UDAGI, TQ: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI

b) SHIVMURTHY S/O MALLAPPA AGE.49 YRS,

c) MALLAMMA W/O LATE DEVAR PAYTI.

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DIGGAON VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI.

a) KALYANI S/O VITHOBA AGE.55 YRS,

b) BALU S/O VITHOBA AGE.65 YRS

c) JAYANATH S/O VITHOBA AGE.48 YRS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT DIGGAON VILLAGE, CHITTAPUR TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN.C. BASAREDDY, HCGP FOR R-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 (V.K.FILED) SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENOUR COUNSEL & MR. KIRAN SURI, SENIOR COUNSEL, FOR SRI. S.V. NISTY AND SRI. C.A. PATIL., ADVOCATES VAKALATHS FILED FOR R-7(a), (b), (c), R-8(a), (b) (c), (d), R- 9(b), R-10(a), (b), (c), R-11(a), R-11(b), R-11(c), R-11(d), R-12(a) R-12 (c) R-12(d), R-13, R-14, R-15, R-16(a), R-16(b), R-16(c), R- 17, R-18, R-19(a), R-19(b), R-20(a) (b), R-22, R-23(a), R-123(b) R-23(c ), R-24, R-25, R-26(b) R-26(e), R-26(f), R-26(g), R-27 R-28(a), R-28(b), R-29(a), R-29(b), R-30(a), R-30(b), R-30(c),

- 29 - R-30(d), R-31, R-33(a), R-33(b), R-33(c), R-34(a) (b), R-35 (a)R- 35(b), R-35(c), R-36(a), (b), R-37, R-38(a), R-38(b),R-38(c), R-38(d), R-39(b), R-39(c), R-40(a), R-40(b), R-40(c), R-41(a), R-41(b), R-41(c), RT-42, R-43, R-44(a), (b), R-45(a), R-45(c), R-45(d), R-45(e), R-47, R-48R-51(a), R-51(b), R-51(c), R-51(d), R-51(e), R-51(f)R -51(g), R- 51(h), R-52, R-53(a), R-53(b), R-54(a), R-54(b), R-55, R-56, R-57, R- 59, R-60, R-61, R-62(a), R-62(c), R-63(a), R-63(b), R-63(c), R-64, R- 66, R-67, R-68(a), R-68(b), R-68(C), r-69(b), (c), (d), R-70(a), (b), (c), R- 72(a), R-72(b), R-73, R-74(A), R-74(b), R-76(a), R-77(a), R-77(b), R-77(c), R-78(a), R-78(b), R- 79(a), R- 80(a), R-80(b), R-81(a), R- 81(b), R-81(C). SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPHANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANESH S. KALABURAGI, SRI. ANANT JAHAGIRDAR & SRI. DESHPANDE G.V., ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 75(a) to (e) (VK FILED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT TO, i) ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL, ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.200244-403/2019, DISMISSING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND GRANTING THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 81 HEREIN IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY

In W.A.No. 200056/2021

BETWEEN:

ULTRA TECH CEMENT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTRED OFFICE AT AHURA CENTER MAHAKALI VACES ROAD, ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA & HAVING ITS UNIT M/S. RAJASHREE CEMENT WORKS ADITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD TALUK : SEDAM, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI - 585 222

- 30 - REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. MR. GERARD D RODERICKS

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL AND SRI. PRAMOD.N.KATHAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. RACHANA B.R. AND SRI. SACHIN.M. MAHAJAN, ADVOCATES)

AND:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES

VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU - 560 001.

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS

DEVELOPMENT BOARD

KAPANOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA

KUMNABAD ROAD

KALABURAGI - 585 292.

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD

" KHANIJA BHAVAN" 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR

RACE COURSE ROAD

BENGALURU – 560 001.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED

BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

4(A) SANGHASHETTY S/O CHANDRASHETTY

AGED, MAJOR.

4(B) MAHANTAMMA D/O CHANDRASHETTY

AGED, MAJOR.

4(C) SHARANAMMA D/O CHANDRASHETTY

AGED, MAJOR.

4(D) NAGARAJ S/O CHANDRASHETY

AGED, MAJOR.

4(E) SHIVKANTAMMA D/O CHADNRASHETTY

AGED MAJOR,

- 31 -

ALL ARE RESIDING AT AV-21/1

ADITYA NAGAR, MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT – 585 292.

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED

BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

5(A) PRATHAPSINGH S/O MANJU LAMBADA

AGED, MAJOR

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) TARABAI W/O LATE PRATHAPSINGH

AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O NRUPATUNGA NAGAR

MALKHED TANDA, TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

ii) ANITABAI D/O LATE PRATAPSINGH

AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O NRUPATUNGA NAGAR, MALKHED TANDA

TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI.

iii) SAVITA MAHESHWARI W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR

AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB

R/O UNIVERSITY, SARSWATIPURAM COLONY

KALABURAGI.

5(B) LAXMAN S/O MANJU LAMBADA

AGED MAJOR,

BOTH RESIDING AT STATION TANDA

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

6 DEVLIBAI W/O ISRAM SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS.

6A) HARISHCHANDRA S/O ISRAM, AGED MAJOR, SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES,

6A.I) CHANDRA S/O HARISHCHANDRA, AGED54 YEARS,

6A.II) VEERANDRA S/O HARICHANDRA AGED 50 YEARS,

BOTH AREA RESIDING AT HUDA B VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK-585292,

- 32 - (LRS BROUGHT ON RECORD AS PER ORDER OF THIS HON’ BLE COURT DATED: 31.01.2019 ON IA NO.5) BOTH ARE RESIDING AT STATION THANA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT-585 292.

6B) LAXMIBAI W/O BHIMA AGED MAJOR, BOTH RESIDING AT STATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

7A) BABURAO S/O SUBHASH, AGED MAJOR.

7B) NARASINGH S/O SUBHASH AGED MAJOR.

7C) RAJAKUMAR S/O SUBHASH AGED MAJOR,

7D) SHANKAR S/O SUBHASH AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT STATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

8B) GANESH S/O LATE SHANKAR AGED MAJOR.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

1 . NIRMALA RATHOD W/O LATE GANESH RATHOD AGE: 43 EYARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O MALKHED TANDA, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI

8 C) HEMANTH S/O LATE SHANKAR AGED MAJOR.

- 33 - 8 D) RAVINDRA S/O LATE SHANKAR AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT, STATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

12A) PUTALIBI W/O LATE MOHAMMAED HANEEF, AGED MAJOR,

12B) MOHAMMAD MUSSAB S/O HYDERALI JAMADAR AGED MAJOR,

12C) BASHEER S/O MOHAMMAD MAHEBOOB ALI AGED MAJOR.

12D) SHAMEEN BEGAUM W/O MOHAMMAD USMAN AGED MAJOR.

12E) ABDUL HAZEEZ S/O MOHAMMED USMAN AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

13 . CHENDRASHEKHAR S/O HARISHCHANDRA

- 34 - AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT STATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

14A) BEGUMBEE W/O MOHAMMED HANEEF, AGED MAJOR.

14B) MOHAMMED AYYUB S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR.

14C) MD. KHAJA S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR.

14D) BABUMIYA S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED MAJOR.

14E) PUTALIBEGUM W/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN AGED MAJOR.

14F) SYEDA BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED ALI AGED MAJOR.

14G) MOHAMMED IMAM S/O MOHAMMAD ALI AGED MAJOR.

14H) MOHAMMED RIZWAN S/O MOHAMMAD ALI AGED MAJOR.

14I) MEHAMOOD MIYA S/O IBRAHIM SAAB AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 35 - REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HERIS,

16A) CHANDRASHEKAR S/O NAGAPPA JAMADAR, AGED MAJOR.

16B) PADMAVATI W/O CHANAPPA JAMADAR AGED MAJOR, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

17A) SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O BASAPPA, AGED MAJOR.

17B) CHANDRAKALA W/O SHANTAPPA AGED MAJOR, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT UDAGI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S

A)TAHERA BEGUM W/O LATE DASTAGIR AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B TQ: SEDAM DIST: KALABURAGI.

20A) MOHAMMAD YOUSUF S/O MEHBOOB SAAB, AGED MAJOR.

20B) MOHAMMAD ALI S/O MEHBOOB SAAB AGED MAJOR.

- 36 -

20C) MOHAMMAD ZAKIR S/O MOHAMMAD CHAND AGED MAJOR.

20D) SHAIK MOHAMMED S/O MEHBOOB SAAB AGED MAJRO,

20E) MOHAMMAD AMJAD S/O MEHBOOB KHAJA AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGALHEIRS.

21A) RADHABAI W/O PRABHU RAO,

AGED MAJOR.

21 B) SHIVAJIJ S/O PRABHU RAO

AGED MAJOR.

21C) AMBOJI S/O PRABHU RAO

AGED MAJOR

ALL ARE RESIDING AT

HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BYHIS LEGAL HEIRS

MAREMMA W/O MUNINDRAPPA

AGED MAJOR, UDAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

24(A) SABAWWA W/O BHIMSHA,

AGED MAJOR

- 37 -

i) BHIMASHANKAR S/O LATE. TIPPAYYA

AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

24B) RAJENDRAPPA S/O BHIMSHA

AGED MAJOR.

24C) DEVINDRAPPA S/O BHIMSHA

AGED MAJOR.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) CHANDAMMA W/O LATE DEVENDRAPPA ITAGI

AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

24D) RAMAYYA S/O BHIMASHA

AGED MAJOR.

24E) HANAMANTH S/O BHIMASHA

AGED MAJOR

24F) MUDDANNA S/O BHIMSHA

AGED MAJOR.

24G) MALLAMMA W/O RAMANNA

AGED MAJOR.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT, HUDA-B VILLAGE

(BHIMANAGAR) MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

AGED MAJOR,

RESIDING AT 1/84/A, DAGI VILLAGE

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

AGED MAJOR

SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED

BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

26A) NAGAPPA S/O BHIMSHA

AGED, MAJOR

26B) BHIMANNA S/O BHIMSHA

AGED MAJOR.

- 38 -

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT

HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED.

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.

27A) YELAMMA W/O MARIAPPA

AGED MAJOR.

27B) YENKAPPA S/O BAGAPPA

AGED MAJOR

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA –B

VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.

28A) NOORJA BEGUAM

W/O ABDUL RAHEEM

AGED MAJOR.

28B) MOHD. HUSSAIN

S/O ABDUL RAHEEM

AGED MAJOR.

28C) MOHD. HASAN S/O ABDUL RAHEEM

AGED MAJOR.

28D) MOHD. YOUNUS S/O ABDUL RAHEEM

AGED, MAJOR

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE

(BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT

HUDA-B VILLAGE, (BHIM NAGAR)

MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK

KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 39 - 30. MOINUDDIN S/O HYDER ALI JAMADAR

AGED MAJOR

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

30A) ABDUL SUKUR S/O MOINUDDIN

AGED MAJOR

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGHH LR’S)

i) FAIMUDABEGUM W/O SIKANDAR

D/O SUKUR MIYA, AGE: 45 YEARS.

OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

30B) CHINUMIYA S/O MOINUDDIN

AGED MAJOR,

BOTH RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE

(BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) MAHABOOB S/O LATE CHUUNUMIYA

AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

ii) MAIMOOD MIYA

S/O LATE CHUUNUMIYA

AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

iii) JARIN BEGUM W/O JAVID

D/O LATE. CHUUNUMIYA

AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

ALL R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

31A) PUTALIBEE W/O NABISAAB

AGED MAJOR.

31B) ZAMEER S/O NABISAAB

AGED MAJOR.

31C) SHABIRUDDIN S/O SHAMSUDDIN

AGED MAJOR

- 40 - ALL ARE RESIDING HUDA-B VILLAGE

(BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

SINCE DECEASED

REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS

32A) MOHAMMAD NAZIR MIYA

S/O MOHAMMAD KHAJA

AGED MAJOR.

32B) ABDUL RAZAK

S/O MOHAMMAD KHAJA

AGED MAJOR

BOTH ARE R/AT HUDA-B VILLAGE

(BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD

SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

33A) KASHIRAO S/O HUSAINAPPA, AGED MAJOR.

33B) SUSHILABAI W/O GURUPAD AGED MAJOR,

33C) BHIMRAYA S/O HUSAINAPPA AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 2/219, UDAGI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

34A) LAXMIBAI W/O NARASAPPA, AGED MAJOR.

34B) RAVIKUMAR S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED MAJOR, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 17/4, HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 41 - 35 MAHADEVAPPA S/O HANAMANTH JAMADAR HUDA AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 17/5, HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

36A) BASANNA S/O BHIMSHAPPA, AGED MAJOR.

36B) TULAJAMMA W/O NAGANNA AGED MAJOR.

36C) MALLAPPA S/O BHIMSHAPPA AGED MAJOR.

36D) SHARANAPPA S/O BHIMSHAPPA AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO. 17/6, HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

37 SABANNA S/O HANUMANTHA TALWAR SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS.

37a. LOKAPPA S/O SABANNA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S

i) SHARANAMMA W/O LATE. LOKAPPA

AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

ii) ESHWARAJ S/O LATE. LOKAPPA

AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

iii) SOMASHEKHAR S/O LATE. LOKAPPA

AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

ALL ARE R/O UDAGI, TQ: SEDAM

DIST: KALABURAGI.

37b) MALLAPPA S/O SABANNA AGED MAJOR

- 42 -

37c) RAVINDRA S/O SABANNA AGED MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 196 UDAGI VILLAGE,SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

38a) SIDDAMMA W/O HAYALLI, AGED MAJOR

38b) SUBANNA S/O HAYALLI AGED MAJOR,

38c) SANTOSH S/O HAYALLI AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.17/8 HUDA B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

39a) PRATHAPSINGH S/O MANJU JULIA NAIK, AGED MAJOR,

39b) LAXMAN S/O MANJU JULIA NAIK AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT STATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD,SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

40b) GOPAL S/O UMALA AGED MAJOR, SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

- 43 - 40b.i) SONI BAI W/O UMALA PAWAR AGED 65 YRS, R/O MALKHED STATION THANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK 585292

40c) NARASINGH S/O UMALA AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT STATION TANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

43a) MALLAMMA D/O NINGAPPA (W/O LAKSHMAN) AGED MAJOR BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B (BHIMNAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

44a) ARJUNAPPA S/O DEVAPPA, AGED MAJOR

44b) SHVIAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA AGED MAJOR (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

- 44 -

i) KASTURIBAI W/O LATE SUBHASHCHANDRA

AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: AGRIUCULTURE R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM, DIST:KALABURAGI

44c) KASTURIBAI W/O MARUTHI AGED MAJOR

44d) BEERAPPA S/O DEVAPPA AGED MAJOR

44e) NAGAPPA S/O DEVAPPA AGED MAJOR, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B (BHIMNAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

A) BASVARAJ S/O LATE GHALAPPA

AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:AGRICUTURE

B) SIDDALINGAPPA S/O LATE GHALAPPA

AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

C) RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE GALAPPA

AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

D) GANGAMMA W/O LATE HANUMATHAPPA

AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

ALL R/O KONGANDI, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST:YADAGIR

- 45 -

A. SABAWWA W/O LATE SANNA BHIMASHA AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI

A. TIMMAVVA W/O LATE SABAYYA

AGE:58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O NASAR JUANG, CHITTAPUR, DIST:KALABURAGI

51a) TIPPAYYA S/O BHIMANNA AGED MAJOR

51b) SHANKAR S/O BHIMANNA AGED MAJOR

51c) MALLIKARJUN S/O BHIMANNA AGED MAJOR

51d) DEVENDRA S/O GURULINGAPPA AGED MAJOR,

51e) MALAMMA W/O GURULINGAPPA AGED MAJOR,

51f) BASAVARAJ S/O HANUMANTHA AGED MAJOR,

- 46 -

51g) SHIVRAJ S/O NARASAPPA AGED MAJOR,

51h) NAGARAJ S/O NARASAPPA AGED MAJOR,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT, HANGANAHALLI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK, DISTRICT KALABURAGI.

a. LAKSHMI W/O MARIYAPPA, AGED: MAJOR

b. HANAMAWWA W/O SHIVARAYA, AGED: MAJOR,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.15/60 HUDA-B (BHIMNAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a. BUDDAPPA S/O SABAYYA, AGED: MAJOR b. BHAGAPPA S/O SABAYYA, AGED MAJOR,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B, (BHIMNAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 47 -

a. ABDUL HAMID S/O IBRAHIMSAB, AGED:MAJOR b. REHEMAN ALI @ MOHD. ABDUL RAHEMAN S/O IBRAHIMSAB, AGED MAJOR, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 16-75, HUDA-B (BHIMNAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

DEVAKI W/O ALTE MEGHARAJ AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.18/58, HUDA-B (BHIMNAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 48 -

a) CHENNABASAPPA S/O DODDA BHIMASHAH AGED MAJOR, b) MAHADEVI W/O SHIVARAYA AGED MAJOR, c) SABAYYA S/O SHIVARAYA AGED MAJOR, RESIDING HOUSE NO.18/90, HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIMNAGAR), MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S) i) YALLAMMA W/O LATE. SABANNA ITAGI AGE:60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O HUDA-B, TQ: SEDAM DIST:KALBURAGI RESIDING HUDA-B (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

a) MOHD. GOUSE S/O LATE MOHD. ABDUL GAFOOR AGE:35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O H NO 19-2-197/23, RAMNASPURA, HYDERABAD (TELANGANA STATE)

- 49 -

a) PEERAMABEE W/O MOHD. YOUSUF, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT,HUDA-B VILLAGE(BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) MOHD. GOUS S/O MOHD. CHITTASAB, AGED MAJOR b) MOHD. NOOR S/O MOHD. CHITTASAB, AGED MAJOR, c) SHAREIFF UNNISA W/O MOHD. MUSTAFA, AGED MAJOR,

RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE(BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) DEVAMMA W/O SABANNA, AGED MAJOR, b) MALLIKARJUN S/O SABANNA, AGED MAJOR, c) CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O SABANNA, AGED MAJOR, d) KRISHNA S/O SABANNA, AGED MAJOR,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE(BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE (BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 50 -

(SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS

a) RAJAMMA W/O LATE NAGAPPA RESIDING AT HUDA-B VILLAGE(BHIM NAGAR) MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

a) KISHAN SINGH S/O PULA SINGH SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

71.b.i) DEVALI BAI W/O KISHEN AGED 70 YEARS,

71.b.ii) GORI BAI S/O LATE MOHAN AGED 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BHUGADI TANDA, YAGAPUR, CHITTAPUR, DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585 218.

72a) RAVIKUMAR S/O KISHAN SINGH, AGED MAJOR,

72b) DHANIBAI W/O GANGU, AGED MAJOR,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT STATION KHANDA, MALKHED ROAD, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

- 51 - 74a) SUBHADRAMMA W/O BASANNA, AGED 55 YEARS

74b) SEETAMMA W/O SAIBANNA, AGED 51 YEARS

BOTH RESIDING AT UDAGI VILLAGE, SEDAM TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT.

75a) RAMESHCHANDRA S/O NARAYANDAS LADDA AGED 60 YEARS

75b) SURESHCHANDRA S/O NARAYANDAS LADDA AGED 58 YEARS

75c) OMPRAKASH S/O NARAYANDAS LADDA AGED 50 YEARS

75d) PREMALATHA W/O RAMESHWAR MANTRI AGED 65 YEARS

75e) SRIKANTH KASATA S/O GOVINDALALA KASATA AGED MAJOR

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOTTALABASAVESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, SEDAM TOWN, SEDAM.

AGED: 82 YEARS

R/O PLOT NO.:56, SHAHABAD ROAD, CHITTAPUR

SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

A. PRAHALAD S/O BALAKISHAN, AGE:59 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS R/O KALABURAGI

B. DR. VIJAYKUMAR S/O BALAKISHAN AGE:57 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND MEDICAL PRACTICE, R/O CHITTAPUR

C. CHANDA W/O BADRINARAYAN RATHI AGE:62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOUSEHOLD R/O BAGALKOT

D. TARA W/O ASHOK ZAWAR, AGE:55 YEARS OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD, R/O ICHALKARANAJI

- 52 - (MAHARASHTRA) (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LR’S)

i) ANIKETH S/O ASHOK ZAWAR AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB R/O ICHALKARANAJI, MAHARASHTRA

(LR’S THROUGH ON RECORD AS PER ORDER

ON I.A.NO.:1 DATED:10.04.2019) …RESPONDENTS

( VIDE COURT ORDER DATED: 17.04.2021 SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, HCGP FOR R-1, 2, & 3 SRI B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 3 (VK FILED) SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL & MISS. KIRAN SURI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.V.NISTY AND SRI. C.C.APATIL, ADVOCATES VAKALATHS FILED FOR R-4(A), TO 4(E), R-5(A), R-5(B) R-6A(i), R-6a(ii), R-6b, R-7(a) to 7(d), R-8(a), 8(b), (c), (d) R-9 to R-11, R-12(a), R-12(b), R-12(d), R-12(e), R-13, R-15, R-16(a) (b), R-17(a), R-17(b), R-18, R-19, R-21(a) to (c), R-23, R-24(A), to 24(g), R-25, R-26 (a)(b), R-27(a), (b), R-28(a), to (d) R-29, R-30(a), R-30(b), R-31(a) to (c), R-32 (a), R- 32(b), R- 33(a), to (c), R-34(a), R-34(b), R-35, R-36(a) to (d), R-37 (a), R-37(b), (c) R-39(b), R-40(a), R-40(b) (i), R-40 (c), R-41, R-42, R-43(a), (b), R- 44 (a), (c) (d), (e), R-45, R-46, R-47, R-48, R-49, R-51(a) to (f) (g), (h) R-52, R-53 (a), (b), 54(a) R-54(b), R-55, R- 56, R-57, R-59 to R-61, R-62(a), (c), R-63(a), (b), (c), (d), R-64, R-65, R-66,R-67(a), to (c), R-68(B) (C) (d), R-69(a) to (c) R-70, R- 71(b) (i), (b), (ii), R-72(b), R-74(a) (b), r-76(A) to (C).

SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANESH S. KALABURAGI, & SRI. ANANT JAHAGIRDAT & SRI. DESHPANDE G.V., ADVOCATES FOR R-75(A) TO (E) VK NOT FILED FOR RESPONDENTS NOS. 12 (C ), R-14(A), to (i), R-20(a), to (e), R-22, R-24(d), R-39(a), R-50, R-58(a), (b), R- 62(b), R-62(b), R-68(a), R-71(a), (c), R-72, R-73)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, i) ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL, ii) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.203384/2018 AND ETC.

THESE WRIT APPEALS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.12.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

- 53 - JUDGMENT

The present Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.200055/2021, 200056/2021 and 200057/2021 arise out of the impugned common judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.203384/2018, W.P.203385/2018 and W.P.Nos.200244-403/2019.

- 54 - (i) Indian Rayon Corporation Ltd.,(predecessor-in- interest of the Appellant) addressed letters dated 12.02.1981 and 02.03.1981 to the respondent-KIADB seeking its assistance to acquire 1187 acres of land for setting up a cement plant. Acting upon such a letter, the respondent-State in exercise of its power conferred on it by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short, “the KIAD Act”) issued two Preliminary Notifications both dated 12.6.1981 under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act, for acquiring lands in Malkhed village in an extent of 1181.35 acres and in Diggaon Village in an extent of 119.24 Acres for establishment of industry. Thereafter, two final notifications dated 24.11.1981 and 26.11.1981 under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act were issued in respect of the said lands in said villages. (ii) The KIADB wrote a letter dated 07.04.1982 to the Appellant allotting lands, which had been acquired under the aforementioned notifications. The land price was fixed at Rs.2808.30/- per acre, pursuant to which, an award dated 28.05.1982 came to be passed in respect of the lands acquired in Malkhed Village which fixed the price of

- 55 - the land so acquired at Rs.1,700/- per acre along with solatium at 15% p.a. A separate award dated 28.06.1982 was passed in respect of the lands acquired in Diggaon village also. (iii) The Appellant addressed a letter dated 31.7.1982 to the Department of Industries and Commerce, informing it that besides the Award, by which the land holders get Rs.1,955/- per acre (Rs.1,700/- per acre plus 15% solatium), the Appellant will pay an ex-gratia amount to each of the land holders at the rate of Rs.3,795/- per acre, thus making the compensation a total sum of Rs.5,750/- per acre and that it will also enter into an agreement with the land holders. Accordingly, ex-gratia payments were made to 79 land-owners which are clear from a Tabular Statement annexed to the writ proceedings. The relevant documents evidencing the ex-gratia payments are the 76 Affidavits and Agreements executed by the land owners which are annexed to the writ petitions. Appellant has also annexed 76 Receipts executed by various landowners accepting ex-gratia payment and stating that they have no further claims against the Appellant, the KIADB or the State

- 56 - Government. Further, 74 statements given/issued in writing by the landowners before the Special Land Acquisition Officer accepting the compensation offered by the Appellant without protest were annexed to the writ petitions. A list of payments and a table showing ex-gratia amounts prepared by the Appellant were also annexed to the writ petitions. Besides, Appellant also filed a list showing the landowners and/or their family members who have been offered employment in addition to the aforesaid compensation and documents evidencing acceptance of the employment offered and provided by the Appellant and letters/affidavits addressed by landowners to the Appellant requesting for employment. (iv) A supplementary award granting 30% solatium as per Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 was made and based on the same, a demand for Rs.11,78,588.40/- was raised by the KIADB on the Appellant on 30.12.1992 and 02.10.1993, which was challenged by the Appellant in W.P.No.8707/1993, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

- 57 - (v) Appellant preferred Writ Appeal No. 4321/1998 and the judgement of the learned single judge was set aside by the Division Bench by judgment dated 29.05.2000. In the said order, the Division Bench noticed and recorded the fact of ex-gratia payments made by the Appellant and that the land owners had entered into an agreement with the Government and the Appellant in relation to the quantum of compensation. (vi) The KIADB executed three lease-cum-sale agreements dated 02.11.1982, 23.01.1985 and 02.04.2005 in favour of the Appellant for an extent of 633.04 acres and two sale deeds in respect of 553 acres. It is contended that no other industry has been established in the area implying that the acquisition had been undertaken only for the benefit of the Appellant. (vii) During 1997, one Peerappa, who was one of the land owner in relation to an extent of 5 acres 20 guntas at Malkhed village filed a reference in LAC.No.943/1997 under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, before the Reference Court which came to be dismissed by the Civil Court on 18.01.2001 on the ground of delay and on a

- 58 - challenge made thereto before this Court in an appeal, the order of the reference Court was upheld by this Court. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3244/2005, preferred by the said Peerappa, set aside these orders of the Reference Court and of this Court by an order dated 27.4.2011 and remanded the matter to the Reference Court. Pursuant thereto, the Reference Court passed an order dated 29.09.2012 enhancing the compensation amount payable to Peerappa at the rate of Rs.1,37,000/- per acre with all statutory payments. (viii) Subsequent to the aforementioned order, respondents-land losers herein presented the applications under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act on various dates before the SLAO seeking re-determination of the compensation in view of the aforesaid Award passed in favour of Peerappa. (ix) Meanwhile, Peerappa filed MFA No. 32157/2012 against the order dated 29.09.2012 passed by the Reference Court and the said appeal having been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2013,

- 59 - Peerappa preferred SLP No.19819/2013 before the Apex Court. (x) So also, the Appellant preferred in W.P.100860/2013 on the ground that it being a beneficiary was a necessary party before the Reference Court. By order dated 22.09.2014, this Court set aside the award passed in favour of Peerappa and remanded the matter back to the Reference Court. (xi) Peerappa challenged the said order dated 22.09.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.100860/2013 before the Apex Court in SLP No.31624-625/2015 and the same was heard along with SLP No.19819/2013 preferred by Peerappa referred to supra. (xii) By judgment dated 30.07.2015, the Apex Court allowed both the SLPs filed by Peerappa holding that the Appellant was not a beneficiary and therefore was not entitled to be heard by the reference court and also enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,37,000/- to Rs.1,92,000/- per acre. The said judgment has been reported as Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan vs. State of Karnataka & others - (2015)10 SCC 469.

- 60 - (xiii) After conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon demand made by the KIADB for payment of enhanced compensation to the said Peerappa, Appellant paid the amount of Rs. 48,33,936/- demanded by the KIADB under protest. (xiv) It is contended that meanwhile, the applications filed by the respondents-land losers under Section 28-A of the L.A.Act were pending consideration before the SLAO. In the said proceedings, appellant filed applications dated 04.06.2018 before the SLAO seeking to implead itself to the Section 28-A proceedings inter-alia contending that it was a person interested in the proceedings and also a proper and necessary party to the proceedings. However, the SLAO neither considered the said applications nor heard the Appellant or passed any orders on the impleadment applications filed by the Appellant. Instead, the SLAO passed the award dated 08.06.2018, without considering the impleadment application and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. (xv) Pursuant thereto, on 28.6.2018, KIADB raised a demand upon the appellant for a sum of Rs.240.28/-

- 61 - crores, which comprised of 196.87 crores being the compensation amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Rs.43.50/- crores being the service charges of KIADB @ 22.1%. (xvi) Aggrieved by the impugned Award dated 08.06.2018 and the demand raised by the KIADB, the Appellant preferred the aforesaid W.P.No.203384/2018 and W.P.No. 203385/2018 before this Court. (xvii) In addition to contesting the said petitions, the respondents-land losers also preferred W.P.200244- 403/2019 wherein they sought for certain corrections to the impugned Award dated 08.06.2018 and for directions to the KIADB to make payments to them in terms of the Award. (xviii) By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions filed by the Appellant – Ultratech Cement Ltd., and allowed the petitions filed by the respondents, aggrieved by which, the Appellants are before this Court by way of the present appeals. 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the following points were framed for consideration by the learned Single Judge:-

- 62 - a) Whether the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-company are maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Peerappa’s case, alternatively doctrine of res-judicata is applicable to the petitioner- company? b) Whether the petitioner-company is a ‘person interested’ under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(for short, “the LA Act”)? c) Whether the petitioner-person is an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 28(2) of the KIAD Act? d) Whether the petitioner-company is required to be heard by the respondent-KIADB before passing the impugned award? e) Deletion of words (in kannada) ‘M/s Rajshree Cement Companyravara Yojanegagi’ from the impugned award(Annexure-A) warrants in these writ petitions, as prayed for by the land owners? f) Whether the impugned award dated 08th June 2018 passed by the respondent-KIADB is valid and legal? g) What Order?

- 63 - filed by the respondents-land losers by recording the following findings:- (a) Appellant-Company was not the beneficiary of the acquisition and it was only an allottee of the lands from the KIADB and that it was the KIADB which was the beneficiary; (b) Appellant-Company was not a ‘person interested or a person aggrieved’ for the purposes of Section 28-A of the KIAD Act; (c) Appellant-Company did not have locus standi to participate or be heard in the Section 28-A proceedings; (d) The Section 28-A proceedings and the impugned award without hearing the Appellant-Company or considering its claim were not violative of principles of natural justice; (e) The claim of the Appellant-Company is barred by res-judicata in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Peerappa’s case; (f) The agreements, affidavits etc., relied upon by the Appellant-Company to contend that the respondents-land losers had agreed and undertaken that they would not seek

- 64 - any enhancement of compensation are void under Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act.

- 65 - c) State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra - AIR 1968 SC 647; d) Uttaranchal Road Transport Corporation v. Mansaram Nainwal - (2006) 6 SCC 366; e) Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2002 SC 1334; f) Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Bombay (2002)4 SCC 297; g) U.P. Cooperative Cane Union Federation Ltd vs Liladhar, (1980) Suppl SCC 437; h) Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Ors. vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors. - (2002) 5 SCC 11; i) Whirlpool Corporation. v. Registrar of Trade Marks - (1998) 8 SCC 1; j) R.L. Jain v DDA - (2004) 4 SCC 79; k) Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co v. Union of India - (1976) 2 SCC 981; l) Manohar v. State of Maharashtra - (2012) 13 SCC 14; m) Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan - (2010) 9 SCC 496; n) Anjebhau v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Mh. L.J. 1414; o) Shri Lachoo Mal Vs. Shri Radhey Shyam - (1971) 1 SCC 619; p) Commissioner of Customs, Bombay vs. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Ors -(2002) 4 SCC 316; q) The Director of Inspection of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi and Ors. vs. Pooran Mal and Sons - (1975) 4 SCC 568; r) Krishna Bahadur vs. Purna Theatre and Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 229; s) A.V.M Sales Corporation v. Anuradha Chemicals (2012) 2 SCC 315; t) Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre - (2004) 8 SCC 229;

- 66 - u) Henriqueta Maria Julieta v. State of Goa, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom. 236; v) LaxmibenRatilal Patel v. State of Gujarat - SCA 15321 of 2017; w) Union of India v. Pramod Gupta - (2005) 12 SCC 1; x) State of Assam v. Jitendra Kumar Senapati - (1981) 2 SCC 221. y) Shrikrishna v. State of Maharashtra - 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 988; z) K.S. Paripoornan – vs- State of Kerala - (1994) 5 SCC 593; aa) Goa Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs Government of Goa - AIR 1996 Bom 121; bb) Edward Keventer (P) Ltd. v. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board - (2000) 6 SCC 264; cc) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla - (1992) 3 SCC 285; dd) Calcutta Municipal Corp. v. Shrey Mercantile - (2005) 4 SCC 245; ee) Synthetic & Chemicals v. State of U.P - (1990) 1 SCC 109; ff) State of U.P. v. Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd - (2004) 1 SCC 225; gg) Municipal Corpn Amritsar v. Senior Supdt of Post Offices - (2004) 3 SCC 92; hh) A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. v. S.N. Raj Kumar - (2018) 6 SCC 410; ii) Kolkata Fish Suppliers' Welfare Association Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors - MANU/WB/2269/2019(Calcutta); jj) Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Varkey Construction - (2010) 8 SCC 24; kk) Supreme Paper Mills Ltd v. CCT - (2010) 11 SCC 593;

- 67 - ll) Raj Kumar Gandhi v Chandigarh Administration- (2018) 7 SCC 763.

(2016) 4 SCC 434; e) Jaswant Singh v. Custodian of Evacuee Property - (1985) 3 SCC 648; f) Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane Vs. Vithu Hira Mahar - 2009 (10) SCC 273; g) Babua Ram & Ors Vs. State of U.P. & Anr – (1995)2 SCC 689;

- 68 - h) Githa Hariharan & Anr. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Anr – (1999)2 SCC 228; i) Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors - (2016) 2 SCC 779; j) Swapna Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha & Ors - (2018) 17 SCC 621; k) Hindu Kanya Maha Vidyalaya, Jind & Anr. vs. Municipal Committee, Jind & Ors - 1988 (Supp) SCC 719; l) Union of India & Anr. Vs. Hansoli Devi & Ors - (2002) 7 SCC 273; m) A.V.M. Sales Corporation Vs. Anuradha Chemicals Pvt. Ltd - (2012) 2 SCC 315; n) Narendra &Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors - 2017 (9) SCC 426; o) Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors. Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir - 2017 (4) SCC 717; p) Raj Kumar Gandhi Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. - (2018) 7 SCC 763; q) Union of India & Anr Vs. Pradeep Kumari & Ors. - (1995) 2 SCC 736

(i) Whether the Appellant is a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of the considering the applications filed by the

- 69 - respondents-landlosers under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? (ii) Whether the claim of the Appellant was not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan vs. State of Karnataka (2015)10 SCC 469? (iii) Whether the impugned awards passed by the SLAO, KIADB without considering the impleadment applications filed by the Appellant in the instant Section 28- A proceedings and without providing an opportunity to the Appellant are vitiated and violative of principles of natural justice? (iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the impugned awards passed by the SLAO, KIADB warrant interference by this Court in the present appeals?

Re-Point No.1: 12. As stated supra, the respondents-land losers filed the instant applications under Section 28-A of the L.A.Act seeking re-determination/enhancement of compensation pursuant to the judgment and award dated

- 70 - 29.09.2012 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No. 943/1997 filed by Peerappa, whereby the compensation awarded in his favour was enhanced by the reference court which was ultimately further enhanced by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be relevant to extract Section 28-A of the L.A.Act, which reads as under:- 28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. - (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court; Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on

- 71 - which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.”

12.1 As can be seen from the aforesaid provisions, Section 28-A(1) stipulates as under:- a) An award should have been passed under Section 11 of the L.A.Act by the LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner awarding compensation in favour of the land loser pursuant to the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the L.A.Act;

- 72 - b) The land loser should apply under Section 18 of the L.A.Act before the reference court seeking enhancement of compensation; c) The reference court should pass an award enhancing and awarding compensation in excess of the compensation already awarded in favour of the land loser; d) Other land losers who are interested in all other land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act are entitled to make a written application before the LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner requiring that the amount of compensation payable to them may also be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the reference court; e) Such other land losers should be aggrieved by the award of the LA/Collector/Deputy Commissioner; f) Such other land losers/applicants are entitled to file an application notwithstanding that they had not made an application earlier under Section 18 of the L.A Act before the reference court;

- 73 - g) Such an application has to be made within a period of 3 months from the date of award of the reference court; h) In computing the period of limitation of 3 months, the day on which the award was pronounced by the reference court and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

12.2 Section 28-A(2) prescribes the procedure to be followed by the LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner when an application is filed before him by the land losers as hereunder: a) The LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner shall hold/conduct an enquiry regarding re-determination of the compensation already awarded in favour of the applicants under Section 11; b)

During the course of enquiry, the LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice to all persons interested in the issue/question regarding re- determination of compensation;

- 74 - c) The LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner shall give all such ‘persons interested’ in the issue/question regarding re-determination of compensation a reasonable opportunity of being heard; d) The LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner shall then pass an award determining the amount of compensation payable in favour of the applicants on the basis of the compensation awarded by the reference court.

12.3 Section 28-A(3) contemplates that in the event the applicant does not accept the award passed under Section 28-A(2), he is entitled to file a written application to the LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner requesting him to refer the matter for determination to the reference court and the provisions contained in Sections 18 to 28 shall apply to such a reference; for eg., if the applicant seeks enhancement by 50% and the LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner enhances by only 25%, the applicant is entitled to seek reference to the reference court in this regard.

- 75 - 12.4 As stated supra, Section 28-A(2) supra mandates that upon the receipt of an application under Section 28-A(1), it is incumbent upon the LAO/Collector/Deputy Commissioner to issue notice, provide an opportunity and hear all ‘persons interested’. In the instant case, the respondents-land losers had filed applications before Special land Acquisition Officer(SLAO), KIADB under Section 28-A(1) of the L.A.Act. While it is the specific contention of the appellant that it is a ‘person interested’, respondents contend that the appellant is not a ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act. 12.5 In our considered opinion, the material on record clearly establishes that the appellant is a ‘person interested’ who was entitled to be notified, heard and provided sufficient and reasonable opportunity by the SLAO, KIADB during the course of enquiry conducted by him for the following reasons:- (a) The appellant had filed an impleadment application seeking an opportunity to be heard before the SLAO, KIADB; along with the application, appellant had

- 76 - produced several documents to substantiate its claim that it was a ‘person interested’ and neither the impleadment application nor the documents were considered by the SLAO, KIADB prior to passing the impugned awards; (b) The undisputed fact that the appellant had filed an impleadment application in the Section 28-A proceedings which was not considered by the SLAO, KIADB who did not pass any orders on the same prior to passing the impugned awards was sufficient to show that the appellant was a ‘person interested’ who was entitled to an opportunity of being heard before proceeding further in the matter; (c) The appellant specifically contended that the respondents-land losers had not only accepted the original award and compensation without protest but had also accepted ex-gratia payment by the Appellant and had signed affidavits, receipts, agreements and statements accepting such compensation and ex-gratia payment and have also demanded and accepted employment in the Appellant - Company and specifically undertook that they would not seek any enhancement of compensation from

- 77 - the State, KIADB and the appellant who had produced several documents to substantiate its contentions; under these circumstances, it was clear that the appellant was a ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act; (d) In their applications (Annexures W to W-79 to the writ petition) filed under Section 28-A(1) before the SLAO, the respondents inter-alia stated as under: “Even if any agreement or an affidavit is made or taken by coercive method, under compulsions, under pretext, as there is no way of left to get the adequate compensation by the collusive act of acquiring body and the respondent and its subordinates does not bind the petitioners or his legal representatives. Under these circumstances, you are required to re-determine the compensation, at least on par with the award of LAC 943 of 1997 time being without prejudice his/her/their rights to claim adequate compensation.”

(e) As is clear from the aforesaid averments made by the respondents-land losers themselves that they not only refer to the documents which militate against their claim for re-determination, but they also specifically allege collusion, which necessarily implies a collusive act between two

- 78 - persons, viz., the KIADB and someone else, i.e., the appellant; in the backdrop of the specific allegations made in the applications filed by the respondents-land losers, which contained a veiled reference to the appellant and the documents relied upon by it, the sole inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid facts and circumstances was that the appellant was a person interested for the purpose of considering the applications filed by the respondents-land losers. (f) The respondents-land losers had filed Section 28- A applications before the SLAO, KIADB, who is none other than the State Government delegate under Rule 14 of the KIAD Rules; it follows there from that since the applications were filed before the SLAO, KIADB for re-determination, the State or KIADB before whom the applications were filed naturally cannot be treated or construed as ‘persons interested’ for the purpose of Section 28-A and ‘persons interested’ must obviously be persons other than the State or the KIADB; under these circumstances, in the light of specific allegations and counter-allegations made by the respondents-land losers and the appellant with regard to

- 79 - affidavits, receipts, agreements etc., the appellant was clearly a ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A of the LA Act; (g) The contention of the respondents that the appellant was merely a post-acquisition allottee and not a beneficiary and therefore not a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of Section 28-A(2) is devoid of merit; as is evident from the said provision, in the facts of the instant case, neither the applicants-land losers nor the State or SLAO, KIADB before whom the applications were filed were ‘persons interested’, thereby leading to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant who had put forth its claim along with documents regarding re-determination of compensation was a ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A of the L.A. Act; under these circumstances, it cannot be said that merely because the appellant was an allottee and not a beneficiary, it was not a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of Section 28-A of the L.A. Act; (h) The contention of the respondents that the appellant was not a beneficiary and it was only the KIADB

- 80 - which was the beneficiary since the name of the appellant is not found in the notifications under Sections 3(1), 1(3), 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act and therefore, appellant is not a person interested also cannot be accepted in the light of the peculiar/special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, viz., allegations made by the respondents- land losers in their Section 28-A(1) applications regarding affidavits, agreements, coercion, collusion, etc., and counter-allegations made by the appellant in this regard, payments said to have been made by the appellant, impleadment application filed by the appellant, the entire extent of land being allotted and sold in favour of the appellant prior to filing of the Section 28-A applications and other documents etc., all of which cumulatively establish that though the name of the appellant was not found in the aforesaid notifications as a beneficiary, the appellant was a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of Section 28-A(2) of the L.A. Act; (i) Though the impugned awards were passed by the SLAO, KIADB, pursuant to which the respondents-land losers would be entitled to claim compensation from the

- 81 - KIADB, the immediate demand made by the KIADB to the appellant calling upon them to pay compensation along with service tax was sufficient to establish that the impugned awards had substantially impacted the appellant and affected their rights in the compensation payable, thereby making them ‘persons interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A of the L.A. Act; (j) The undisputed fact that the entire extent of land measuring 1187 Acres acquired under the aforesaid notifications was allotted and sold to the appellant who had paid the entire compensation amount coupled with the allegations and counter allegations by both parties regarding affidavits, agreements, receipts, collusion, ex- gratia payment, employment etc., are pointers to the only inference that the appellant was a ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A of the LA Act; (k) The appellant had specifically contended that the respondents-land losers had received compensation, ex-gratia payments, employment and had executed affidavits, receipts, agreements etc., in this regard undertaking not to seek enhancement of compensation, as

- 82 - a result of which, they were estopped from claiming enhancement/re-determination; the said claim was opposed and denied by the respondents-land losers in their applications themselves even prior to the appellant filing the impleadment application; the totality and cumulative effect of these facts and circumstances also establish that the appellant was a ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A of the L.A. Act; (l) The learned Single Judge failed to consider and appreciate the specific contention of the appellant that the lands in question were acquired for its benefit as per various documents, viz., letter of Indian Rayon Corporation (predecessors of the Appellant) dated 12.02.1981 and 02.03.1981 seeking the assistance of KIADB to acquire 1187 acres of land for setting up cement plant, that the Appellant itself had also requested that the area in question be declared as an ‘industrial area’, that even before the award was passed in respect of the lands in question, the KIADB wrote a letter dated 07.04.1982 informing the appellant about allotment of lands pursuant to the application of the appellant dated 12.02.1981 specifically

- 83 - stating the provisional price of the land, which the appellant is required to pay to KIADB, the awards impugned in the present proceedings itself repeatedly states that the lands in question have been acquired for the project of the Appellant and merely because appellant’s name was not found in the preliminary and final notifications, it did not obviate the fact that the entire land was acquired for the benefit of the appellant alone, particularly when the entire subject acquired land was entirely allotted to the appellant and not anyone else coupled with the fact that KIADB has called upon the appellant to pay compensation.

(m) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant is a person interested as on the date of re-determination of compensation as contemplated under Section 28-A of the L.A.Act, since by that time, the appellant was not a mere ‘allottee’ simpliciter but had became the owner in possession of 553 acres of the lands by virtue of the sale deeds executed in its favour by the State and KIADB who had also executed lease-cum-sale deeds in favour of the appellant in respect of the remaining 632 Acres and consequently, appellant was a person

- 84 - interested for the purposes of re-determination under Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act and was entitled to participate in the proceedings;

(n) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that on a reading of Sections 28-A(1) and 28-A(2) of the L.A. Act, it is evident that the phrase “persons interested” in the two sub-sections have different connotations. While on the one hand, in Section 28-A(1), the terms ‘persons interested’ are used in the context as to who can file an application under the said provision and it states that ‘persons interested’ in all other lands covered by the same notification and who are ‘aggrieved’ by the award may make an application; Section 28-A(2),on the other hand, stipulates that the Collector has to issue notice to ‘all persons interested’ and give them an opportunity to be heard irrespective of whether they are aggrieved by the award of the Collector or not; thus the provisions of Section 28-A(2) mandate the collector to give notice along with an opportunity of hearing to all persons interested including the appellant herein and that it is not possible to interpret that notice under Section 28-A(2) is to be issued to the

- 85 - same persons who have filed applications under Section 28-A(1) and are aggrieved persons;

(o) The learned Single Judge also failed to notice and appreciate the fact that while Section 28-A(1) uses two different phrases, i.e. ‘persons interested’ and ‘aggrieved’, Section 28-A(2) uses only a single phrase viz., ‘persons interested’; while Section 28-A(1) is restrictive in its scope, ambit and operation, a wider interpretation has to be given to Section 28-A(2) so as to include persons who will be called upon to pay the re-determined compensation;

(p) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that if the expression ‘persons interested’ contained in Section 28-A(2) is interpreted as aggrieved landowners only, then the term ‘all the persons interested’ would become redundant and rendered nugatory and otiose and consequently, the said provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner that renders the said words or expressions redundant or superfluous;

(q) The learned Single Judge also failed to notice, consider and appreciate that Section 3(b) of the L.A. Act while defining the expression ‘person interested’ uses the

- 86 - word “includes” and not “means and includes” and therefore, the definition of the said expression is an inclusive definition and cannot be restricted to only the landowners, since an inclusive definition widens etymological expressions or terms used in a statutory provision apart from the fact that inclusive definition of the expression ‘person interested’ is merely inclusive/illustrative and not exhaustive;

(r) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the expression ‘persons interested’ connotes different meanings with respect to different provisions under the L.A.Act and hence, while for the purpose of Section 11 or Section 18, it may have a restrictive meaning, for the purpose of Section 28-A(2), the meaning thereof would be different, especially when there are several supervening facts at the time of re-determination which are not in issue and conspicuously absent at the time of determination under Section 18 of the L.A.Act; it follows there from that all such persons viz., the appellant who would become liable to pay enhanced compensation as on the date of such applications under Section 28-A and on the date of re-

- 87 - determination of compensation, would be “persons interested” who would entitled to be notified and heard before passing an award;

(s) The learned Single Judge failed to consider and appreciate the provisions of Section 3 of the L.A.Act i.e., the definition clause which begins with the words “in this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context” which means that it is possible for the word to have a somewhat different meanings in different sections/provisions of the Act depending upon the subject or context and need not have the same meaning in all the provisions;

(t) The learned Single Judge failed to consider and appreciate the jurisdictional issue urged by the appellant, viz., all the respondents-land losers who had filed applications under Section 28-A(1) were not covered by the same notification as in Peerappa’s case and were accordingly not entitled to the same compensation and since these issues had neither been addressed nor adjudicated upon in the impugned awards, it was necessary that an opportunity was provided to the

- 88 - appellant and it was heard during the course of enquiry under Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act;

(u) The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate while the extent of land involved in Peerappa’s case was only 5 Acres 20 Guntas and the impugned awards encompassed around 1180 Acres, in respect of which the same compensation could not have been awarded as had been done in the impugned awards especially in the light of the expressions, ‘re-determination on the basis of the compensation awarded by the reference court’ and ‘conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants’ employed in Section 28-A(1) and (2) and consequently, it was imperative that an opportunity was provided to the appellant before passing the impugned awards, whereby exactly the same compensation awarded in respect of Peerappa’s 5 Acres 20 Guntas had been awarded in favour of the remaining land losers in an extent

- 89 - of 1180 Acres, which was contrary to Section 28-A of the L.A.Act;

(v) The contention of the respondents that the expression ‘person interested’ contained in Section 28- A(2) should be given the same meaning as the expression, ‘person interested’ as defined under Section 3(b) of the L.A.Act, which is the definition clause by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Gita Hariharan’s case (supra) also cannot be accepted since apart from the fact that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts, the scheme underlying Section 28-A and the plain reading of the provisions contained therein does not support the said interpretation.

(w) The reliance placed by the respondents on the judgment of the Apex Court in Babua Ram’s case (supra), in order to contend that the appellant is not a ‘person interested’ is also misconceived, in as much as the facts obtaining in the said judgment are completely different from the facts of the case on hand and consequently, the said contention of the respondents cannot be accepted;

- 90 -

(x) The learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the appellant was not a ‘person interested’ in view of the finding recorded against the appellant by the Apex Court in Peerappa’s case (supra); in this context, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the said finding in Peerappa’s case arose out of the proceedings under Section 18 of the L.A.Act before the reference court while the present proceedings arise out of the impugned awards passed under Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act and as such, the finding recorded in Peerappa’s case could not have been made the basis to come to the conclusion that the appellant was not a ‘person interested’ even for the purpose of Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act;

(y) The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the alleged agreements, receipts, affidavits, etc., said to have been signed by the land losers accepting compensation and ex-gratia payments are void without appreciating the well settled principle that every individual is entitled to contract out of a statute and under the protection given to him under a statute and that one has a right to waive and to agree to waive the advantage of a law

- 91 - or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the individual and consequently, Section 28 of the Contract Act had no application to the facts of the instant case, particularly when the bar on contracting out of the statute has to be specifically imposed by Section 28-A itself or any other provision of the L.A.Act which does not contain any proscription on such contracting out; in any event, the issue regarding applicability of Section 28 of the Contract Act would necessarily have to be considered only after providing an opportunity to the appellant and hearing it and as such, rejecting the claim of the appellant at the very thresh hold was premature and contrary to Section 28-A(2) and violative of principles of natural justice;

(z) The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that in view of the specific contention urged by the appellant that the claim of the respondents-land losers was clearly barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver, it was essential that an opportunity was provided to the appellant to oppose and defend their claim especially when the appellant was called

- 92 - upon to pay the re-determined/enhanced compensation amount pursuant to the impugned award;

(aa) The learned Single Judge erred in holding that no factors are required to be taken into consideration while re-determining compensation under Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act without appreciating the express language employed in the provision which contemplates of an enquiry for the purposes of re-determination; if enhanced compensation was to be awarded automatically to other landowners covered by the same notification, the Legislature would not have directed holding of an inquiry with regard to enhanced compensation; further, Section 28- A(3) stipulates that the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 of the L.A.Act shall apply for determining the compensation which is a pointer to the fact that automatic extension, application and payment of enhanced compensation awarded to a person is not contemplated under Section 28- A of the L.A.Act and the same amount of compensation need not be given where there are differences in nature, quality and situation of the comparable land; so also, even in respect of the same notification when a reference is

- 93 - made, all persons need not get the same amount of compensation and the same would depend upon the nature of the land, quality of the land, location/situation of the land etc., i.e., if the land is nearer a highway as compared to another land which is far away from the highway but specified in the same notification for acquisition, the compensation awardable to either of them will vary, if one is a fertile land and has irrigation facility being situated next to a river or a channel, the same attracts award of an higher compensation as compared to a land which has no irrigation facilities; accordingly, re- determination of compensation awarded by automatic application of enhanced compensation without taking these factors into consideration is not contemplated under Section 28-A of the L.A.Act;

(ab) The learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate that the SLAO had passed similar/identical awards under Section 28-A in respect of both Diggaon and Malkhed villages awarding same re-determined/enhanced compensation in relation to 2 separate and distinct notifications dated 28.05.1981 and 28.06.1981 which was

- 94 - impermissible in view of the express language employed in Section 28-A(1) of the LA Act, “the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1)” which contemplates that land losers under the aforesaid two different, distinct and separate notifications cannot be clubbed into one single category for the purpose of Section 28-A and on this ground also, the impugned awards deserved to be set aside and an opportunity to contest the claim for re- determination /enhancement was to be provided to the appellant; 12.6 In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is a ‘person interested’ within the meaning of Section 28-A(2) of the L.A. Act and was entitled to be notified, heard and provided sufficient and reasonable opportunity prior to passing the impugned awards and the finding of the learned single judge in this regard deserves to be set aside. Point No.1 is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant by holding that the appellant is a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of considering the applications

- 95 - filed by the respondents-land losers under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the appellant was entitled to be notified, heard and provided sufficient and reasonable opportunity in the enquiry conducted by the SLAO under Section 28-A(2) of the L.A.Act, 1894.

Re- Point No.2: 13. The next point that arises for consideration is, whether the claim of the appellant was maintainable in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Peerappa’s case (supra), to which the appellant was a party. In this context, it is relevant to state that while it is contended by the respondents-land losers that the entire claim of the appellant is completely negatived by the Apex Court in Peerappa’s case (supra) and that the same operates a res-judicata, the appellant contends that the said judgment is distinguishable and rendered under different circumstances and would neither apply nor operate as res- judicata or act as a bar for considering the claim of the appellant in the present appeals.

- 96 - 13.1 As stated earlier, the judgment of the Apex Court in Peerappa’s case (supra) arose out of the proceedings under Section 18 of the L.A.Act before the reference court, while the present proceedings arise out of the impugned awards passed under Section 28-A(2) of the L.A. Act. In our considered opinion, the judgment in Peerappa’s case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case and consequently, the same would neither operate as res-judicata nor be a bar for the appellant to assail the impugned awards for the following reasons;- (a) The facts involved in Peerappa’s case arose out of an award which was accepted by him under protest and without there being any further allegations and counter allegations or disputed questions or fact as obtaining in the instant case, thereby indicating that the factual matrix in both cases being completely different and Peerappa’s case would not apply to the facts of the instant case; (b) Peerappa’s case arose out of the proceedings under Section 18 of the L.A.Act, whereas the present case involved a claim under Section 28-A; the scheme

- 97 - underlying consideration of the application under Section 28-A in the light of the facts involved in the instant case is circumscribed by the provisions contained therein and the same is distinct/different from the scope and ambit of proceedings under Section 18 of the L.A.Act which culminated in the Apex Court in Peerappa’s case which are not applicable to the present proceedings; (c) In Peerappa’s case, the sole/only dispute that arose for consideration was with regard to the quantum of compensation, whereas in the instant case, several other factors including allegations and counter allegations as regards additional payments, employment, affidavits, agreements, receipts etc., arise for consideration which were conspicuously absent in Peerappa’s case, which was clearly distinguishable on facts; (d) The appellant had not filed impleadment applications in Peerappa’s case before the reference court as against the impleadment application filed by the appellant in the instant Section 28-A proceedings, which was yet another distinguishing feature between both the cases;

- 98 - (e) Though contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant herein in Peerappa’s case regarding non- awarding of compensation in favour of adjacent land losers- respondents herein other than Peerappa, the Apex Court did not record/render any finding on the said contentions and consequently, Peerappa’s case would neither operate as res-judicata nor be a bar to the appellant to urge the said contentions in the present case; (f) The principles of res-judicata is applicable only between the same parties where the cause of action is the same and that before the said principle is invoked and applied, the following conditions must be satisfied viz., the litigating parties must be the same; the subject matter of the suit must be substantially identical and the matter must be finally decided between the parties; the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the present case does not satisfy the above conditions and having mere similarities without anything more was not enough and hence the present case did not attract the principles of res-judicata, particularly when the facts in Peerappa’s case presented totally a different situation, in that the litigating parties

- 99 - therein were different and did not involve the respondents- land losers; (g) In Peerappa’s case, the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of the proceedings under Section 18 of the L.A.Act, while the cases on hand deal with proceedings arising under Section 28-A of the L.A.Act; in the case of Peerappa, Section 28-A did not fall for consideration or for interpretation and Section 28-A was not in issue at all in Peerappa’s case and therefore, the subject matter of that case was far from being identical to the subject matter of the present proceedings, particularly when it was so held only in the context of an application filed under Section 18 of the L.A.Act and therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court in Peerappa did not operate as res-judicata; (h) The learned Single Judge erroneously placed reliance upon the principles of cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel without examining or appreciating whether the cause of action and issues in the present case and Peerappa’s case are identical or same; the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that cause of action is generally

- 100 - defined to mean a factual situation, the existence of which, entitles one person to obtain from the Court, a remedy against another person and that the said phrase includes every fact, which is material to be proved to entitle the person to succeed while issues are points/aspects/questions which arise for consideration in a given case; since the cause of action and issues in Peerappa’s case and the present case were entirely different and distinct from one another, it cannot be said that the claim of the appellant was barred by the principles of cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel; (i) In Peerappa’s case, neither were any impleadment applications filed by the appellant before the reference court nor was a finding recorded/rendered by the Apex Court regarding applicability of principles of natural justice or their violation which was never in issue in Peerappa’s case, which is yet another factor which distinguishes the said judgment from the facts of the instant case;

- 101 - 13.2 The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly establish that the judgment of the Apex Court in Peerappa’s case was inapplicable to the factual matrix obtaining in the instant case and consequently, the said judgment does not operate as res-judicata nor is it a bar for the appellant to assail the impugned awards or maintain the writ petitions. Accordingly, Point No.2 is also answered in favour of the appellant by holding that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan vs. State of Karnataka & others - (2015)10 SCC 469 was inapplicable to the facts of the instant case and the writ petitions filed by appellant were maintainable and not barred by the principles of res-judicata. Re- Point No.3; 14. The next question that arises for consideration is, whether the impugned awards passed by the SLAO, KIADB without considering the impleadment applications filed by the appellant in the instant Section 28-A proceedings and without providing an opportunity to the

- 102 - appellant are vitiated and violative of principles of natural justice. 14.1 While dealing with Point No.1 supra, we have already come to the conclusion that the appellant was a ‘person interested’ for the purpose of Section 28-A proceedings. The fact that the impugned awards affect and impact the appellant and its legal rights stands established by the undisputed material on record viz., the re- determined compensation which is payable by the appellant as demanded by the KIADB, the impugned awards which categorically state that the land has been acquired for the project of the appellant; that the appellant had admittedly paid the compensation earlier to KIADB; that there are allegations and counter allegations referred to supra made by the respondents-land losers and appellant etc., all of which unequivocally point to the fact that the appellant is a proper and necessary party, upon whom an enormous civil liability is sought to be imposed under the impugned award and consequently, the appellant has a right to be notified, heard and to participate and

- 103 - defend the impugned proceedings under Section 28-A of the LA Act. 14.2 The findings recorded by us above and the material on record clearly establish that the appellant is both a proper and necessary party in order to effectively and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the impugned proceedings under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act in accordance with the principles underlying Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; it is well settled that a person is entitled to be heard, if the decision rendered visits him with civil consequences and the impugned Section 28-A proceedings and award clearly visited the appellant with grave civil consequences; further, any person who will be affected by an adjudication in a proceeding would be a necessary party to those proceedings and any adjudication without hearing, such person would be illegal and unsustainable and the appellant is a proper and necessary party on this score also. 14.3 It is relevant to note that the term ‘entitled to defend’ confers an inherent right on a person if he or she is affected or is likely to be affected by an order to be passed

- 104 - by any legal forum, without which there would be violation of principles of natural justice and viewed from this angle also, appellant was entitled to be notified, heard and provided an opportunity to participate in the Section 28-A proceedings before the SLAO. 14.4 It is also significant to note that the SLAO had not rendered any finding or afforded any reasons as to why the impleadment application filed by the appellant was not considered and hence, the impugned award dated 08.06.2018 was a non-speaking, unreasoned order and violative of principles of natural justice; every quasi-judicial order ought to be supported by reasons and ought to accord free and proper hearing to persons to be affected by their orders; the impugned award which visits the appellant with enormous civil consequences could not have been passed without giving the appellant a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 14.5 As stated supra, despite the undisputed fact that the extent of land involved in Peerappa’s case was only 5 Acres 20 Guntas out of total extent of 1187 Acres, the SLAO has proceeded to pass the impugned awards

- 105 - granting same compensation in respect of the remaining 1180 acres also, although there was considerable variance and difference in the value of the remaining extent of lands; in this regard, even assuming that it was only the KIADB which was the beneficiary and the only ‘person interested’ in the Section 28-A proceedings, it was incumbent upon the KIADB to contest the proceedings and instead of doing so, the KIADB has supported the claim of the respondents-land losers in the said proceedings and even in the present writ petitions/appeals for the obvious reason that the re- determined/enhanced compensation can be demanded from the appellant which has also be done by KIADB; these facts and circumstances also establish that since the ultimate burden of paying the re-determined/enhanced compensation has been fastened upon the appellant by the KIADB who did not contest the Section 28-A applications, but are instead supporting the respondents-land losers, it was imperative that the appellant whose rights are impacted and affected is given an opportunity of being heard and the impugned awards without doing so are

- 106 - clearly violative of principles of natural justice and deserve to be set aside on this ground also; 14.6 The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate non-consideration of the impleadment applications filed by the appellant and non-providing of an opportunity to the appellant prior to passing the impugned awards is a clear violation of principles of natural justice; 14.7 The learned Single Judge also failed to consider and appreciate that in the facts of the instant case referred to supra, non-passing of any order by the SLAO, KAIDB on the impleadment applications filed by the appellant would not only vitiate the impugned awards but the same would be violative of principles of natural justice as held by Apex Court in various judgments, wherein the following principles have been laid down; “Natural justice has been variously defined. It is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the

- 107 - narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognised by all civilised States is of supreme importance….We have referred to the aforesaid passages as they state the basic principle behind the doctrine of natural justice, that is, no order should be passed behind the back of a person who

- 108 - is to be adversely affected by the order. The principle behind proviso to Order I Rule 9 that the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins it and the said principle is also applicable to the writs. No order can be passed behind the back of a person adversely affecting him and such an order if passed, is liable to be ignored being not binding on such a party as the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The principles enshrined in the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provide that impleadment of a necessary party is mandatory and in case of non- joinder of necessary party, the petitioner-plaintiff may not be entitled for the relief sought by him. The litigant has to ensure that the necessary party is before the court, be it a plaintiff or a defendant, otherwise the proceedings will have to fail.”

14.8 Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned awards passed by the SLAO, KIADB without considering the impleadment applications filed by the appellant in the instant Section 28- A proceedings and without providing an opportunity to the appellant are vitiated and violative of principles of natural justice and the same deserve to be set aside.

- 109 - Accordingly, Point No.3 is also answered in favour of the appellant by holding that impugned awards passed by the SLAO, KIADB without considering the impleadment applications filed by the appellant in the Section 28-A proceedings and without providing an opportunity to the appellant are vitiated and violative of principles of natural justice.

Re-Point No.4: 15. While dealing with Point Nos. 1 to 3, we have already come to the conclusion that the impugned awards passed by the SLAO, KIADB are illegal and arbitrary and deserve to be set aside; we have also held that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and contrary to law and facts and deserves to be set aside; consequent upon setting aside the impugned awards, the impugned demand made upon the appellant by the KIADB which is assailed in W.P.No.203385/2018 also deserves to be set aside and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.200244-403/2019 filed by the respondents-land losers deserves to be set aside and consequently, W.P.No.203384/2018 and

- 110 - W.P.No.203385/2018 preferred by the appellant deserve to be allowed and W.P.Nos.200244-403/2019 filed by the respondents-land losers deserves to be dismissed and the entire matter deserves to be remitted back to the SLAO, KIADB for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the appellant and respondents to put forth their respective claims. Accordingly, Point No.4 is also answered in favour of the appellant.

- 111 - In the result, we pass the following;-

ORDER

(i) The Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.200055/2021, 200056/2021 and 200057/2021 are hereby allowed; (ii) The impugned common judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.203384/2018, W.P.203385/2018 and W.P.Nos.200244-403/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside; (iii) W.P.No.203384/2018 filed by the appellant is hereby allowed and the impugned awards dated 08.06.2018 passed by the SLAO, KIADB, under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in relation to all the respondents – land losers are hereby set aside; (iv) W.P.No.203385/2018 filed by the appellant is also hereby allowed and the demands dated 28.06.2018 raised by the respondent - Special Deputy Commissioner, KIADB upon the appellant is hereby set aside; (v) W.P.Nos.200244-403/2019 filed by the respondents – land owners are hereby dismissed. (vi) The matter is remitted back to the respondent – SLAO, KIADB, for reconsideration afresh in accordance

- 112 - with law the applications filed by the respondents – land owners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as expeditiously as possible after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing both the appellant and the respondents – land owners and pass appropriate orders, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant as well as the respondents – land losers to submit pleadings, documents etc., before the respondent – SLAO, KIADB who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. (viii) The amounts deposited by the appellant before this Court in the writ petitions as well as the amounts deposited by the appellant before this Court in the present writ appeals are hereby directed to be refunded back to the appellant.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE Srl.