Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Karnataka Industrial Area Development ... vs M. Venkataramaiah Since Dead By Lrs on 2 December, 2022
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat
1
ITEM NO.32+57 COURT NO.14 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 28887/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06-04-2022
in WA No. 558/2021 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Bengaluru)
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M. VENKATARAMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No.177009/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.177010/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
and IA No.177008/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING
THE DEFECTS )
WITH
ITEM NO. 57
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22081/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-03-2022
in WA No. 557/2021 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Bengaluru)
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
K.H. SHIVANNA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.183249/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY
IN FILING and IA No.183250/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.183248/2022-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS)
Date : 02-12-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Nishanth Patil, AOR
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2022.12.07
Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv.
11:10:08 IST
Reason:
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
2 Delay condoned.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment which held that inaction regarding acquisition was due to delay in publication of final notification under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1996. The High Court’s findings based upon judgment of this Court on this aspect, are sound and based upon a proper appreciation of the legal principles. This Court accordingly affirms the judgment.
The Court is also of the opinion that the delay of nine years by is unreasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case. The impugned judgment of the High Court is accordingly affirmed.
Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SONIA GULATI) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)