Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-- V tire"-Mtiitticipal Coxporation, Kengeri and the same '' V. "was Further, according to the petitianerk counsel, x authority in proceewmg for acquisition and fntziigsetioanv proceedings as against a dead pemen is sum-at andalso submitted ttmeventheclairaof A fltat notice 'm served on Mmakka under S.28(6) of the t'."KiADBActacndthatladyisnotcosteemedwiththegxoceeditngsandthe have pmchasedthe land from one Rsju and Mtmjunath, As perthe pmvisions of flue Land Acquisition Act, the nmnes of the vendors of the '\§ petitioners ought to have been reflected in the revenue records the fixst instance. Petitioners having entered into an agreement on l5;1fi."2_(}bQ and oniy after having got clearance fimm various authorities, property. Noting that only on the basis ofpalupatti entexwfl u during 1999, the petitioners entered into ' ofland in Sy.No.25S fiom its exstwhile ownegkaju, K; . Ramakrishna the pnelimmar'y' nouficaiifiwag issfieé. ~29.1f2eo3 Whereas pursuant to the agreement dated True! has pumhased the prepezty on to the acquisition notification was as per S109 of the Land _is-- Education Trust. The record of rights Wae'*al:'sc~ ef the Petitioner. The same has been entcred it_1 the of".rigii:s 21.4.2003 which order reiaflea back to the " ~.:_!ate,:saleAdeed'"23;ii3;2092. When the petitioner have applied to the Revenue 'is as good as caveat entered in to with the govemment of the property and also there was no impe<i:m' em for . I saIe httixvcug petitioner by the erstwhile vendors, in the back ground 'A x V' acm on the part cf the govemment to proceed with the % 1' without notifying the vendors ofthe petitioner as per the ratio laid Been by the Apex Court 'm Union ofluaia as 01': V: m Angle Afghan A' Agemiw. etc. ~AIR1968SC7'8ifianda1sotothc effect am it is open to the 33"' party who had acted on the representation made by the that the government shed} be bound to carry out me to made by it. Petitioner has also relieé upon Zttfiicasce u Mmmfacmriug Ce Ltd & Ant Vs Ullaaswatgliia-V AIR 1971 sc 1021 and also in m me V T' Vs Sm ef Uttar Pmeseen gore _Aui1:§'v.19£.'9z sb 521,1;e_;§on:ene that government is not exempt representation made by it as to its future Gofiiilflit and undkclosed gmund of neceeemf promise made by it nor claim to be pf an exparte appmsement of citcumstaxaetes. true that there is an agmament entered intcebgtfivaen' "end the Govemment on 3.4.1991, axe same was. cha1Ie§i1g£:%§1'Seimaii§*§ek4n' Raddy': was which came to be V' eeeeggea. me, said eeeeeee. by the High Cami in the Divisien Bench as w§II position is settled as to what is an Irtter Chmge or peep' t be adjudicated in respect of acquisition of land for 'figs fm1naii;;;:iL.of' BMIC project. The Nodal Agency had recommended and effect wquisition ofland as reported to the . In fixat agamst Sy.No.255, the extent is shown as whereas against ofixer numbers that in Sy.No.12l and 122, etc., it is stated that they aee rcquimdforBMICProjectaaa1ch,inwiewof'thercpa1offizeNodai W Agency, Sy.No.255 was not at all required. The Spk. Deputy Cmmaiseiezzet, BMIC Project in his letter dated 30.12.2005 has stated ooquisitioo of land for BMIC Project is pending Supreme Court and no decision can bev.ioi:oo_ae acquisition procoedm" gs at that point. The ' 20 Information Act to the to V L' the eifeet that land tier 0t' iig'h$:ef isrey inelutfmg another chain at' service in Toois estuppel on in part ofthe govemment.» fmo etaie in view ome documents Vi§i"'S:)r.No.255 is not required by I3M1c:Vio's"iseici;:4;a;orV B containing Inter Change Axea of ski -peiiphemlw io nmc Project and also in terms ofthe statementv issixetio The preliminary and final * in respect of Sy.No.2S5 as it is against a dead played by me revenue auihawities wherein the Revenue no oteoioe the service of nutice under 523(2) to the effect that by Thimakka oo 21.3.2003 amiougi she has expired long V' " :baek'a:_1§i eiéoo notice under S.28(6) 'e said to have been received by aflixing. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon several decisions to stand by contention.
make entry in the mtttation register in favour oi' 'cwfiern not render the acquisition pmceedings ii' of notice. It is also submitteti ,ti1e of the pet1t1' 'oner's vendor. The valid1' 'am-.ady been dealt Wifil by the Division am, e f' I. _of ms; bone: is w'{¢s:V_as Vbyi es; Apex Court. Mere non~issnam:ve of guailiiito challenge the proceedh gs. Referring toeie Home Banking co-op. sway V1 BaZmmI¢' ., @"e§awa.'mmu' & 0!: - 11.3 1993 mg 1441, it is have no right to challenge. There is delay of more ti1a1i'2V_"}S'yeai3'Viii__fiih3g the writ petition. Already compensation has been is not a suanger and the vendors ofthe petitiozm -- and K L Raju are am before this cm In the ahaeme of ___"'enti'i:§-eiaitherecordsthattootherewesnaameminnofihe name ofthe vendor kathaorfize name ofthe petitioner inthe record, question ofissuence 1' «ofnoiicedoesnotariae. Infliebegx?ming30g1mtasoflandwa,seae'marked for BMIC Project and by another notification, the remaining extent of land was sought to be acquired and accordingly, referring to the validity of the Project and acquisition proceeding as upheld by the Division act'. this Court and ttm Apex Conn, counsel representing the KIA.I)B_ representing NICE company vehemently contended that no gonna to challenge the acquisition ~ .1: = " _ In the light of the argimzents 1;: mo"