- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100386 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHINTAMANI MADHAV JOSHI, BY HIS LR’S. A) SMT. AKSHATHA W/O. CHINTAMANI JOSHI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, B) KUMARI. SANVI D/O. CHINTAMANI JOSHI, AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, C) KUMARI VAISHNAVI D/O. CHINTAMANI JOSHI, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.46, VIKRAMPUR EXTENSION, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591304. (PETITIONERS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN/NATURAL MOTHER SMT. AKSHATHA W/O. CHINTAMANI JOSHI.) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. BASAVARAJ IRANNA BANDIGANI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JAMAKHANDI-587301, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) R ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 17:00:42 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ON I.A.NO.I IN O.S.NO.58/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ATHANI ON 18.01.2021 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ‘ANNEXURE-A’ IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of Certiorari or Order or direction or Writ to quash the impugned Orders on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.58/2014 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani on 18.01.2021 which is produced at ‘Annexure-A’ in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are; 2.1. The respondent had filed a suit in O.S.No.58/2014, seeking for specific performance of an agreement of sale entered - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 into with the petitioner on 22.02.2013 for sale of property bearing R.S.No.113/7 measuring 10 acres and R.S.No.113/7A measuring 04 acres 25 guntas. 2.2. In the said suit, the petitioner was the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement on 19.09.2015 contending that the suit land is going to be acquired by the Government of Karnataka for Hipparagi Barrage Project for Rehabilitation Centre. A 4(1) notification had already been issued on 09.06.2011 as regards the subject property and as such, the suit was not maintainable. 2.3. It was further contended that, when the land is being acquired, the question of grant of specific performance would not arise. Apart from that, there are various other defences which have been taken in the written statement. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 2.4. Faced with the above situation, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint by insertion of certain pleadings as also for an additional prayer. By way of the additional prayer, the plaintiff had contended that the plaintiff ought to be entitled for the compensation amount awarded by the Acquisition Authority, in the event of the acquisition proceedings being completed. 2.5. The said application having been objected to, came to be allowed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 18.01.2021. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Sri. H. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 3.1. The relief of specific performance sought for by the plaintiff would itself undergo a change if the relief for payment of compensation by the land acquiring authorities is directed to be made to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the same would amount to a suit for recovery of money. 3.2. The right of the plaintiff itself being inchoate inasmuch as there is only an agreement of sale as regards which specific performance is sought for, the question of the plaintiff seeking payment of compensation would not arise. 3.3. Lastly, he submits that an agreement holder cannot seek for the landowner to be substituted relating to compensation in pursuance of acquisition proceedings. 4. Sri. Prashant Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, would however submit that; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 4.1. The notification for acquisition under Sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued on 09.05.2011. It is much subsequent thereto that an agreement of sale came to be entered into on 22.02.2013, which is the subject matter of the suit for specific performance. 4.2. The aspect of the notification under Section 4(1) having been issued was not brought to the notice of the plaintiff when the agreement of sale was entered into. It came to his knowledge only when the written statement was filed. 4.3. The total consideration agreed upon is ₹8,55,000/-, out of which a sum of ₹8,05,000/- has been paid, despite which, the defendant not having executed the sale deed, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for specific performance. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 4.4. Insofar as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, Section 4(1) notification was issued in the year 2011, no further action has been taken. It is unlikely that acquisition would go on and as such, the plaintiff would be entitled to specific performance. In the unlikely event of acquisition proceeding going ahead, the plaintiff having paid nearly 90% of the sale consideration, would be entitled to the compensation amount, in the event of specific performance being granted, but the property not being capable of being conveyed to the plaintiff. This he submits, being an alternative prayer, has been rightly considered and allowed by the Trial Court. 5. Heard Sri. H. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the papers. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 6. In the present case, the acquisition firstly has not been completed, the acquisition is still at the 4(1) notification stage. Secondly, the acquisition notification had already been issued prior to the agreement of sale having been entered into. 7. It is not a case of the landowner now claiming that, because of the acquisition notification, he would be unable to perform his obligation. The landowner was always aware of the acquisition. Preliminary notification having been issued, the landowner cannot subsequently seek to take advantage of it to deny the claim of the purchaser in a suit for specific performance after having received nearly 90% of the sale consideration. 8. The relief which has been sought for by way of amendment is an alternative remedy inasmuch as it is only in the event of the plaintiff being successful in the claim for specific performance and the said relief not being capable of being granted that this relief - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3763 WP No. 100386 of 2021 would be required to be considered. At this stage, it cannot be said that the said claim cannot be denied and would have to be considered only after evidence is led and the trial is concluded. 9. In that view of the matter, the reliefs having been sought for being in the alternative, I am of the considered opinion that the same would not amount to a change in the character or nature of the suit. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court. 10. The petition stands dismissed. 11. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.As., if any, stand dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 130