Karnataka High Court
Basappa @ Basavanni vs The State Of Karantaka on 14 August, 2014
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107806/2014 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN
1. BASAPPA @ BASAVANNI
S/O. TIPPANNA PUJARI
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI
DIST: BELGAUM
2. SHIVAPPA
S/O. BHIMAPPA PUJARI
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI
DIST: BELGAUM
3. SMT. KAVITA
W/O. APPAYYA WALIKAR
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. HUKKERI, TQ: HUKKERI
DIST: BELGAUM
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI : R M KULKARNI & SMT. HEMALEKHA K S.,
ADVOCATES)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA
R/BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
:2:
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELGAUM
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE
BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION, BELGAUM
3. THE CHIEF OFFICER
PATTAN PANCHAYAT, HUKKERI
DIST: BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATHI, A.G.A.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER
THE OBJECTIONS AS PER ANNEXURES-A AND B DATED
28.01.2014 & 28.02.2014 RESPECTIVELY AND FURTHER
TO DROP THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDIGNS IN RESPECT
OF SY.NO.728 OF HUKKERI MEASURING 12 ACRES 23
GUNTAS.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to consider their objections filed pursuant to notification dated 29.12.2013 issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
:3:
2. It is needless to observe that if such objections are filed then under the provisions of the Act the respondent authorities are bound to consider the objections in accordance with law. At this stage it is futile to issue any direction to the respondents to consider the objections of the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed at this stage reserving liberty to the petitioners to assail any further action initiated by the respondents in the acquisition process, if so advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm