Writ Petition No. 14736 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:19184 WP No. 14736 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 14736 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRI B.K.KEMPAIAH S/O LATE KEMPAKADARA @ KEMPAKADARA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O. 108/A, BYALALU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANA KUPPE POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 562 130. (BY SRI PREMNATH N.T., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (SLAO) KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, (K.H.B) CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU – 560 009. SRI KEMPAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAKEMPAIAH DIED ON 18.09.2014. REPORTED TO TRIAL COURT ON 16.07.2019 LRS DID NOT COME ON RECORD, PETITION/REFERENCE ABETTED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2019 BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19184 WP No. 14736 of 2025 HC-KAR 2. SMT. KALINGAMMA, W/O REVANNA, D/O LATE KALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, BYALALU VILLAGE, CHUNCHANA KUPPE POST, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 130. 3. MRS. YAVALIN ANDROS, D/O MARSHAL LOBO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO. 67 AND 68, SS LOBO BUILDING, HOSAGUDDADA HALI, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO. 46/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE BENGALURU (CCH-17) AND EXAMINE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. 7 AND 8 DATED 22.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND QUASH/SET ASIDE THE SAME BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT, CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 7 VIDE ANNEXURE -D AND IA 8 VIDE ANNEXURE -E FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND PROVIDE AND OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER CROSS EXAMINE PW1 TO CONTEST THE MATTER ON MERITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19184 WP No. 14736 of 2025 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner – claimant No.1 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 22.03.2025, by which the concerned Court rejects I.A.Nos.7 and 8, seeking recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination, in LAC.No.46/2019, pending before the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-17). 2. Heard Sri Premnath N.T., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: A land bearing survey No.59/5 of Byalalu village, Tavarekere Hobli, Benglauru South Taluk, measuring 17 guntas belonging to the petitioner, is the subject matter of acquisition by the first respondent – Karnataka Housing Board and pursuant to which certain compensation is determined to be paid to the petitioner – claimant No.1. The petitioner claimed the award amount deposited before the first respondent. To adjudicate the right of the petitioner and other claimants, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19184 WP No. 14736 of 2025 HC-KAR reference was made by the first respondent to the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. On receiving of the notice, the petitioner appears and files his claim statement. 4. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the petitioner or other claimants. In the course of trial for determination of compensation, PW.1 was examined on two occasions. It is contended that the cross-examination was partially done. The matter was set down for further cross- examination of PW.1 on 04.03.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear before the concerned Court and had his own reasons for his absence. The petitioner then files applications – I.A.No.7 seeking to reopen the case and I.A.No.8 seeking permission to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The contesting claimant orally objects to the same, pursuant to which, the applications come to be rejected. Rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if one opportunity is given, cross-examination of PW.1 would get - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19184 WP No. 14736 of 2025 HC-KAR complete and the concerned Court could proceed to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for contesting claimant would though object, at the outset accept the fact that PW.1 was partially cross-examined. He would contend that the petitioner has lost the opportunity of further cross-examination of PW.1 and he should not be permitted to recall PW.1 for further cross- examination as it is only to drag the proceedings. He would further contend that if this Court would allow such an action, further cross-examination of PW.1 should be directed to get completed on a particular day that would be fixed by the concerned Court. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue now lies in a narrow compass as to whether the petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity of further cross-examination of PW.1. 8. A perusal at the order sheet would indicate that the matter was posted for further cross-examination of PW.1 on 04.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner - claimant on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19184 WP No. 14736 of 2025 HC-KAR the said date, is said to have admitted in the hospital and therefore, could not appear. The applications filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed on the aforesaid circumstance. However, I deem it appropriate to allow the applications seeking re-opening of the case and for further cross-examination of PW.1, with a rider that the said further cross-examination should be completed on the day that would be fixed by the concerned Court. 9. It is made clear that no more opportunity beyond the said date shall be granted to the petitioner for further cross- examination of PW.1. The date on which the concerned Court would fix would be the day of conclusion of further cross- examination of PW.1. The concerned Court shall thus, fix a date for further cross-examination and regulate its procedure thereafter, and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
Decision
The writ petition stands allowed. Ordered accordingly. nvj/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE