Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Papamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 3 September, 2012

Author: Anand Byrareddy

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                          1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

     DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

      WRIT PETITION NO.9064 OF 2012 (LA-KIADB)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PAPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
W/O LATE RUDRAPPA
R/AT NO.134
NEAR VINAYAKA ENGINEERING WORKS
BHAVANI ROAD, KUVEMPU CROSS
HEBBAGODI, ANEKAL
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.            ...PETITIONER

       (BY SRI: C SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
       KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
       BOARD, NO.3, 1ST CROSS
       KHENI BUILDING, THIRD FLOOR
       GANDHINAGAR
       BANGALORE - 560 009.

2.     SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA
       PROP: NIRMAN SHELTER PVT LTD.
       DEVELOPER & BUILDERS
       ULL NIRMAN BHAVAN
       NO.71, K R ROAD
       BASAVANAGUDI
       BANGALORE - 560 004.          ...RESPONDENTS
                                 2



    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE FIRST RESPONDENT NOT TO PERMIT THE
SECOND RESPONDENT TO DRAW THE AWARDED AMOUNT IN
RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID LAND BEARING SURVEY
NO.235,   MEASURING      32    3/4     GUNTAS,   SITUATED   AT
MASTENAHALLI      RAJAPURA      VILLAGE,     JIGANI    HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.


    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         O R D E R

The Office having raised several objections, the petitioner had failed to comply with the same. Accordingly, the matter was listed before the Court on 26.7.2012, when the petitioner was granted further time to comply with the office objections. On 14.8.2012, the matter was again listed before the Court and there was non-compliance. The position continues to be the same even as on date. 3

2. When the case is called-out, there is no representation. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

JUDGE KM