Ramappa S/O Mudiyappa Talakal vs The State Of Karnataka, on 18 September, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ramappa S/O Mudiyappa Talakal vs The State Of Karnataka, on 18 September, 2013

Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das

                          :1:




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      Dated this the 18th day of September, 2013

                         Before

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

           W.P. NOS.63402-404/2010 (L.A.)

BETWEEN:

1. RAMAPPA S/O. MUDIYAPPA
TALAKAL, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
(SCB NOT CLAIMED),
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.ARAKERA,
TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL.

2. SHEKARADEPPA S/O. SOMARADDEPPA
GIRADDI, AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ARAKERI,
TQ: YELBURGA.

3. SMT. GAVISIDDAVVA W/O. VEERABHADRAPPA
GADDI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.ARAKERI, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL.
                                   ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. P.G.MOGALI, ADV.,)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
                            :2:




DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MULTISTORYED BUILDING,
BANGALORE-1.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL DISTRICT,
KOPPAL.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER,
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
NO.1 T.R.DIVISION,
MUNIRABAD, TQ: KOPPAL.
                                       ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATHI, AGA)

     THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 22.1.1999 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY R3 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO
SL. NO.12, 230 AND 312 (HOUSE NO.12, 308 AND 227)

     THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING
B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the award dated 22.01.1999 Annexure-A. The grievance of the petitioners that after passing the impugned Award, respondents promised the petitioners that they will :3: initiate fresh proceedings and pass fresh award. It is further contended that in the year 2001, a fresh notification was also issued. If that is so, pursuant to the fresh notification the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, writ petition is hereby disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE BS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court