High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Vinoda Kumar A vs Sri N M Neelakantha on 9 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Vinoda Kumar A vs Sri N M Neelakantha on 9 February, 2010
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & S.N.Satyanarayana
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS mm 9TH DAY or FEBRUARY 

PRESENT

A THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTIcEyV.G.sA*3H4n;§i:t}rC  _   

AND

THE HoN*BLE MR.  %

BETWEEN :

SRLVINODA KUMAR A.,
S / O M ANANDACHARI

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

R/A JY()THIPURA §«'I:~,1,;§@
BIDARIMLLIHQBLI,   _   
BANGALORE EAs'1f:.'*m'LUK..  "  7'

(By sMT.GA':*A*1'I:1é&; P, '72§:3v.j' - . , 

AND:
1.

sR1.N.M,N'EELAKA1$IT}m,_  e 
THE SPE"C_I4ALVLA1\ID'.. " . 
ACQUISITION 01:?1?1c ER,
VIS.VESWARIA}I..TOWER,

,  , 31-'-I? 'FL.Q0E2,_BR.AMBEDKR VEEDHI,
_ A  560 001.
'  .M;_GA§"FHIMMA;YA.
'ESTATE MANAGER,

D;-R,D,O; CQMPLEX.
C.V.?§§AMNA NAGAR,

_   AA_fig5_NG.AE;0RE «- 560 016.
" .{_Bji'~SRI.M.V.CHANDRASHEKHARA

REDDY, ADV. FOR A~2,
SRI.V.S.HEGDE. ADV. FOR Avl)

=k_,$m1lR,,#,,i-',,#

C.C.C.NO.689 oF'2't. respondent,dzifiayé.  it

examine as to whether “land
claimed by the pe-titioner”‘st.aI-Jdsc,acqtiired
the notifications if as a
matter of fa ct theA].a1f:id*s veete fo’tindi.(,a’cquired
by the said”‘3f1:t1tifie_atiof1’: theijietitioner will be
entitled” ” icemifieiviqsaition that is
payable *-the }ri.ghts that has
been __ – – 3 the petitioner by
“other hand if the lands
question.were’v.notV acquired the petitioner
be ‘A dispossessed except by invoking
1% epqroqvisions of the L.A. Act. The writ
it disposed of as above.”

fr-he: complaint is that though the land in

” “-i-Tifisossessioxi-of the complainant is acquired, no compensation

‘ .. 4’ ;4 v j_ to “‘ i A heehfpaid.

V’

4. Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent
No.1 has filed counter stating that when the
possession of the complainant has not been
the notification, question of paying
not arise. It is clear from the abovei’».tl1a.t’the’possessio’.a!i::as
not been acquired as per theV’d.ecis:ion_”‘oi’
therefor the question of respoiiden’t.VV’No’.2* the
amount for the acquired therefore
there is no willful dis_ol)edien.ce-tohitile issued by this
Court.

5. Accordifigljriiiie petition is dismissed.

However, contempt would not preclude

the compiainanti tojfirork out his remedy, in accordance with

Edie;

Eaégg

is
wave;

-~e=w'”””a “if?

igfiwg