Karnataka High Court
K Hasthimal Sisodia vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2011
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
j;
3;
4""
x3/twin"
illfaagelmsifirw 2 This Writ Appeal is filed u / S 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No. 14863/2001 dated 27.5.2004. ' "
This Writ Appeal Coming on for final ay, Chief Justice delivered the following : l " T * JUDGMvENTu4A J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) : V I A preliminary notifiea-lion» to." Ema the appellants land was 'iihereafter, a final notification was Possession of the land a,eqt1ir'esr1':-wastalren 999.
2. ____ __Tli§~I__ " the instant writ appeal approached filing Writ Petition No. 14863/O1. The aforesaid V{ivriti.'.pet:ition came to be dismissed on _ aecoiipinti'of latches, after the learned Single Judge V__ recorded' «the following conclusions:
That the writ petition had been filed by the appellant herein after lapse of 12 years.
(ii) Challenge to the acquisition proceedings before this Court in WP Nss.285'77?86/95 was dismissed by this Court on 1204,1996.
{iii} The order passed by this Court in W'? l'{fesi285?'7"~86/§5, thrsngh writ appeal m..mm Mil iQm€3€€j».i«t%%,i£ax t' view, that in the pending writ petitions Oifi--;_WhiC_l5l"~.rel§ai1C€ has been placed by the learned; MCVQ_liIlS€--E'l"
the petitioners therein had e.hal,leniged._ it proceedings on aecount'h_ot._x the tact: Hproeedtire contemplated under flee. Acquisition Act, l894 had not was not the one of plveais herein before the learned is not possible for us to render respect thereof, in the absenee halving been raised at the hands of the appe'l1a1'1t,d:bVefore' the learned Single Judge. dflnllnjvijaddition to the pleas noticed hereinabove, it is A of the learned counsel for the appellant, that».anqfginielndment should be permitted in the pleadings, as to enable the appellant to raise some pleadings (by .' of an amendment) as have been raised in Writ Petition T "N§.22445/04 and Connected writ petition l\lo.l6858/04. For the instant proposition, learned {3OLiIlSf3l for the appellant has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Bakshish Singh vsi Prithi Pal Singh i995 Supp (3) see 577;