Chikkamari vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Chikkamari vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2008

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

in THE men COURT 0:? KARNATAKA AT  T' % ,  

DATED THIS THE 20?!' DAY ,t)i%* Amugr  V'    _ 

BE}-'(JRE  _ A 4
THE HON'BLE MR.   
wnrr PE'i'ITIQ;§;;..Rj9.   
BETWEEN:   'L   

CHJKKAMARI   "
S/ORAMAIAH   
AGED ABOUT 5'3_YEA'R_'S,.. 2 ,
R/AT JOGARADGBDE V
BIDADIHCEBLI,     ._  
RAMANGARAM*RALUis;._    FE:rmO1~'~IEF'-

(By Sri : 

AND:  "

......--.-.u-.--- >'

 .2' = 1. _'I'H.E 'STATE OF' KARNATAKA
 " V _ 1~?.¥_I*:.'$ :'3E<:R;;TARY.
" --_REV'§£I§i!.!_E~§)EPARTMEN'I',
g M.S.BUiLfJING,
"BAI+i(3ALORE 1.

T SPEQIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
' LKARNATAKA ENDUSPRIAL AREA,
"  QEVELOPMENT BOARD,

3RD FLOOR KEEN! BUILDING,
GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE 9.  RESPONDENTS

* :3"

" " '(By SM'I'.A.R.8HARADAMBA, eovr ADVOCATE FOR R1 SR1 V.Y.KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2) J:

4- I mzs wan' Pmmou FILED utszoszej' AmcLE$"2é67Az~ib%i,_ 227 0;? THE CONS'I'fTU'I'1ON op' fNDIA»_PRAYING.TO " DIRECT THE R2 TO PAY THE COMPENSATION 3N OF * L' SY.NO.I/P--7 MEASURING 1-.,_A~<_;'£2E 20 -.<}:.;rr:fAs OF BALEMEERANAHALLIVILLAGE, 3:03.91 aoau; gammeaam This Writ Petition 'c@ *1-m' m' _,,,- my 1mm- g, this day, the Court made --.

me seem" for issue of msgpondcnt m pay measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in visage, Bidadi _ .. _ Hob}; V . 2 Sn' mshanaaamj, lmed ooimac! Vj petitiomtr, Smt.A.R.Sha1adamba, burned mi Advncatc for mspondcimt No.1 and Sri A learned counsel £01' respondent No.2. 1 1- petitioner is the owner of meal .é situate in Sy.No.1/P-7 cf f Ramanm Taluk. The land under a grant on 19.3.1991 and $ The grievance at mﬁﬁmﬁm dam!

7. acme out ofthc mm:

exam: in fact the mspondcnts have utilised moasurmg 3 acres 2;; context, the petitioner ocmtcnds #3 compensation for the brawn: cxwnt of i ncspitc the petitioner' ' is said an have V am also havmg' got issued a W 28.8.2007, the zmandcnts not actnd % such the pctmoner' ' contracts that Q d1mc:t1an' ' is V to the respondents to pay the oanition for balance extent of] am': 20 gunms. J ll

4. The learned counsel for AA contends that the notiﬁcation L. 2 acres had been aoqu:Ied' m' gs relating to payment been pan to the

5. to be mum: in am the is the owner 'm respect of 3 acres 20 nauﬁca' tion is 'named in respect __._of 2 is paid in Inspect of that 2 alieges that the land actnaﬂy uuhsed' ' by cmtin: extent cf 3 acres 20 gumas.

This"-is aspect of the matter which camot be petition sun as in issue a positive direction to to pay the compensation. It is needless to n that in fact if thc respondents have utrhsw' ' thc extent without the extent at' 1 acre 20 J:

'r.

guntas, the respondents would be under due pmccss oflaew.

this stage is :to .dn'ec.; t{_ cat; em oonsxim" the grievance any issue of legal notice dated ﬁctual aspoct of the if it is Ltlaiat are actually in occupation of o1'___3vacms 20 guntas m clﬁﬁod by the iatnly on wt' of a copy of this cadet and the ofsnch action shalibc intimamd tn the W a period oftbur months thcnsaftnr. If the _ of the petitioner is not mdruscd, and if the stili pc1sista,itwouiclbcopwﬁrthcpc1i1:oncr' In ' Qappmach the appmpxiam forum in aeeoydm with law. L b with the above observation, the disposed of. No mdcr as to coats. '» Tudgé Akc

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court