Asadkhan Co Op Souding Society Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Asadkhan Co Op Souding Society Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2009

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH C0011"? OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED was THE 39?" mar OF 3uNE',.%2¢'a19VV.'.Tij'~  % T 1  

BEFORE 

ms HOWBLE MR. 3us'm:_e ASHf)K_ B. :~4:N§::~::<;%E:zi% 

wszrr PETITI§__>N no. a2a;é3i'2oo9{%   

ASADKHAN coif 0?.-${>L3SENS-SQ't':IE;*¥'Y'-.,LTD

288. MUJAWAR 'tE'.xAi.'.ii'.,:,V_BE!,CiAUM  

BY rrs CH}\IRMAN} IBR}\HIM»'VﬁAUSHAD K SH EK

AGED 33        %

R/O -- so-.M. ._ NV   .....9e'm'1o:~zER

(By sax am. Ku--Li§ARN;:,AADv;)

nu... '»

 :,  .Ts%e.Ts"?§.TE §'?5.F"KAR?4A'YAKA

R13 THE. 'SECRETARY T6 REVENUE SE?-'ARTMENT
M 5 B£3ILEiNG,
DR A£'4E:ED=i(AR RGA§,

   %.&.msAma.e»-560 301,.

  ASSESTANT commssmgsaerz

,aEmAu1~1

A %   '  X ,  we SUB-REGISTRAR,

BELGAUM.



4. MR AMBUSSALAM ABDULRAZAK INAMBAR
MAJOR, OCC NIL
R/0 MUJAWAR GALLI
BELGAUM   

5. MR. MUSHRAF s/0 LATE ABDULS}*éTT;§§R"'MU3AW!iXR:" 
MAJOR, occ: susmess  A      '   '
R/C} MUJAWAR GALLI, BELGAIM

5. MR. SHAHABUDDIN DILAWAR..M_GMIN
AGED MAJOR,    
R/O I MAIN, III CROSS; SHIVA3-I j.NAGP.R;   
8ELGAUM - _  9»,"-.I;.,.RESPONDENTS

Tmsxvarr ~F:§1-i.ED UNEER ARTICLES 226 AND 22:? 01: THE C'(3--%§ST}3'UTIQf%i-{§F INDIA PRAYING T0 DIRECT THE .RESPO§ii§ENT No.'1A*A§\;9 2% To PROCEED WITH THE sscnorsa 51 ﬂgN°Q!}I"RY. IN} 9g'EsEEcT"6E LAND SY.l'%O..999 AREA 3 ACRES 5 G'Ul §T,?s.:S'0§'fv«B}E.?;(34:\i5§.M VILLAGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS :f"<...A_Vv»DIRECFE9 mswmo.1ae4/mas, 1555 AND S7/1986 AND 9386/17999 v§).<:¥»'v*§3'DI'¥"I(3USLY.

LL TmsT>ETITIorI comma are ma r=RELI:~IIIuAav HEARING THE'-AA.[5AI{, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORBER The oetitioner has sought a writ of manda}f;'o'iiV:s;":.t:o:"'t.he respondents No.1 and 2 to proceed with enc;u§ry*'-.'t:.i?nd1eAt::

5A of the Land Acquisition Act in rgisriect. oé théfiiétmi tat Sy.V 4' No.999 measuring 8 acres 5 guntas of§é_§'éum'*\)iii~o,ge the directions contained in W.P. §:o,j;as4/Aéstoanqothé§"petuéions.ii A

2. The facts of th'e*-.A§.4_:c:'fase--'_iA:i tlieiipreiiminary notiﬁcation was issued on_.._1§_.9V8.;'$2:_a*h'd. t~h¢'«V"finai notiﬁcation (declaration) watsiis5;gec2% for the acqumition of the $3965 for the' gté;'pose_é3:i(i of the petitioner. Some of the iand owgierg ciidai-igogédtthé acquisition proceedings in w.P. it£fio[18VS4,i8é'ijarioi.A_othe%mtﬁonr§ected petitions. This Cetsrt, by its otom:aciotetij~g';Z;f:$i';~1995 quashed the ﬁnai notiﬁcation dated 2 'V":£'9.08tS2, a1_s'nvo~" onquiry under Section 5A of the said Act was Tfieréafter, the Government passed the: order dated withdrawing these iands from the acquisition " :pro.<_:éedings. The saié oroier dent:-tifying the mods was aiso V"*t.ifk'A-bﬁought to this Court in w.9. No.6193/01. This Court quashed '' the denotification as the same was passed without hearing the $354 4 beneﬁciary i.e., the petitioner herein. The Govemmentiadce its order dated 15.Q6.08 turned down the fame ownerei..rexo'o*eet:"for the deietion of these lands from the acquisition or '

3. Sri Kuikarni, the iearned :'cou:heei the 'peteition_er submits that the necessary 7di«.Ifection-sh the Government to conciuee the enqeirifiihoer 5AEof the Act and thereafter issue the Vfinai_An'otifieeti~o'eiAitiecieration ) under Section 6(1) of the said Actvlli-V" ;; it

4. I_It __iettit'e.thet the-.a_cquisition of lands faii within the eminent derneih iofthe direction can be given to the Governrrgfentto acq.ni're the iands. This petition is iiabie to be :'v'rej'ecte:d7' 'aﬁnotheirwreason. The preiiminary notification is iss1ﬁ'eV_ti'«-i'_oVﬁ":i;§~..Q$.I.$$'; As per the Proviso 1 to Section 6(1) 'w'inserted«..bya.__v;Act«:'~'No.68 of 1984, the finai notiﬁcation cannot be "":7.4£'setiedVLafteif-the expiry of the three years from the date of the 4§ebi.iceti.o'n of the preiiminary notiﬁcation, if the preiiewinary ' jn'ot.ifi.eation is issued before the commencement of Act 68 of In View of this stetontory embargo, any direction to issue 0 5 the ma! notiﬁcation or declaration is mt permés§i*$i§;'-..,, I therefore, dismiss this writ ioetition.

5. Further, it is made clear t-i1"a"t"if.i;h"e; ﬁ;r;.s§:re_Spohdé§at 9? forms the epinior: that the lands aCgi;i~reé benefit of the petitioner, it is opéniiigit to."inii;i'at§j'i:hVé;:§&qii'isitio§i' proceedings afresh. with Hfiis cbser$%_ati6-n, thi§'wr§t"V:petitien is dismissed.

s3c*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court