Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 194 (2.05 seconds)

Sri H D Kumaraswamy vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2015

Layout could not have been formed unless the adjacent land was acquired. Therefore, it was well within the power of the Government to denotify the land. The act of denotification was in discharge of official duty. Reliance was placed on the decisions reported in 2010(3) SCC page 621, Hari Ram and another Vs. State of Haryana; AIR 2000 SC page 3403(1) B.A. Basavaiah and others Vs. BDA and others; AIR 2015 SC page 444 M/s Magnum Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India; ILR 2006 Kar page 318 The Commissioner BDA and others Vs. State of Karnataka; Civil Appeal No.4097/2010 Bondu Rmaswamy and others Vs. BDA. No doubt, the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner support the contention that section 48 of L.A.Act empowers State to withdraw from acquisition provided possession has not been taken and that the vesting of land under section 16 of the Act presupposes actual taking of possession and till that is done, legal presumption of vesting enshrined in section 16 cannot be raised and that small packet of 77 acquired lands surrounded by lands which were not acquired or which were deleted may be considered for deletion if they are not suitable for forming layouts. In the present case, the fact situation is totally different. The land was acquired, acquisition proceedings were completed, award was passed and possession was taken by drawing mahazar. Inspite of acquisition, the land was sold in favour of accused Nos.5 and 6 through registered sale deeds dated 13.12.2004 for consideration of Rs.43,75,000/- and Rs.47,25,000/-. Subsequently, accused Nos.5 and 6 have sold the land in favour of accused Nos.7 to 15 for consideration of Rs.4,14,00,000/-. On the date of making representation for denotification, the accused Nos.2 to 4 were not the owners of the land and they were not in possession. It is alleged, the act of denotification is the result of conspiracy. The office of Trust has been misused. No public interest was involved. For pecuniary gain denotification has been done. The state has suffered loss. There is factual foundation for the offences alleged.
Karnataka High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Anil Amencherla vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Principal ... on 13 August, 2013

In Re.Quesion No.3: To answer this question, the Apex Court's judgment in the case of HARI RAM AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 3 SCC 621 is of immense value. In the said case, the Apex Court has come down very heavily on the authorities for not following the uniform policy regarding the withdrawal of lands from acquisition. Passing different orders in respect of the persons similarly situated relating to the same acquisition proceedings and for the same public purpose was held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is held therein that though the landowner, whose land has been acquired cannot claim, as a matter of right, the release of his land from acquisition, but where State exercises its power under Section 48 for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land, the similarly situated landowners have a right to the similar treatment. Equality of citizens' rights is one of the fundamental pillars on which the edifice of rule of law rests. All 41 actions of the State Government have to be fair and for legitimate reasons. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - A Hinchigeri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next