Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a poor land loser, was awarded compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) for his acquired land. The compensation amount was deposited in the Civil Court, and a cheque was issued to the petitioner. However, the cheque was lost and never encashed. The petitioner filed an application before the Civil Court seeking issuance of a fresh cheque. The learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, by order dated 04.07.2017, declined to issue a fresh cheque. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The High Court observed that the petition lay in a very narrow compass. It noted that the petitioner's right to compensation does not extinguish merely because the cheque was lost and not encashed. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to a fresh cheque without the need for fresh adjudication. The impugned order was quashed, and the Civil Court was directed to allow the petitioner's application and issue a fresh cheque. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Replacement of Lost Cheque - Right to Compensation - The petitioner, a poor land loser, was awarded compensation by the SLAO but the cheque was lost and not encashed. The Civil Court declined to issue a fresh cheque. The High Court held that the right to compensation does not extinguish merely because the cheque is lost; the petitioner is entitled to a fresh cheque without fresh adjudication. (Paras 1-3)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India - Interference with Civil Court Order - The impugned order declining to issue a fresh cheque was quashed as it was unjust and contrary to law. The High Court directed the Civil Court to allow the petitioner's application and issue a fresh cheque. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Court was justified in declining to issue a fresh cheque to the petitioner when the earlier cheque was lost and not encashed, and whether the petitioner is entitled to such replacement without fresh adjudication.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Sr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Hirekerur, in L.A.C.No.149 of 2006 is quashed. The Court below is directed to allow the application dated 04.07.2017 filed by the petitioner and issue a fresh cheque in lieu of the earlier one.
Law Points
- Right to compensation
- replacement of lost cheque
- land acquisition
- writ jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Article 227
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (04) 19
Writ Petition No.108573 of 2017 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Vidyashankar Dalwai for Sri. G.M. Bhat (for petitioner), Sri. R.M. Phirangi (for respondent)
Abdulgafar Sab, S/o. Kilatisab Javali, @ Abdulgapar Javali, S/o.Shilarsab
The Branch Manager, Axis Bank
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Civil Court declining to issue a fresh compensation cheque.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 04.07.2017 in L.A.C.No.149 of 2006 passed by the Court of Civil Judge Sr.Dn. and J.M.F.C., Hirekerur, and direction to allow the petitioner's application for issuance of a fresh cheque.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's compensation cheque was lost and not encashed; the Civil Court declined to issue a fresh cheque.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Court by order dated 04.07.2017 declined to issue a fresh cheque.
Issues
Whether the Civil Court was justified in declining to issue a fresh cheque to the petitioner when the earlier cheque was lost and not encashed?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh compensation cheque without fresh adjudication?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the right to compensation does not extinguish merely because the cheque was lost and not encashed, and he is entitled to a fresh cheque.
Respondent bank's advocate appeared but no specific arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to compensation does not extinguish merely because the cheque issued is lost and not encashed. The petitioner is entitled to a fresh cheque without the need for fresh adjudication.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition lies in a very narrow compass.
The petitioner a poor land looser who was awarded compensation by the SLAO in respect of the land acquired is before the Court justifiably complaining against learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, who has by the impugned order dated 04.07.2017 declined to issue a fresh cheque in lieu of earlier cheque which was lost and not encashed.
The right to compensation does not extinguish merely because the cheque is lost and not encashed; the petitioner is entitled to a fresh cheque without fresh adjudication.
Procedural History
The petitioner was awarded compensation by the SLAO. The compensation amount was deposited in the Civil Court and a cheque was issued. The cheque was lost and not encashed. The petitioner filed an application before the Civil Court for issuance of a fresh cheque. The Civil Court declined by order dated 04.07.2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
