High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Rajamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Rajamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAIZNATAKA AT BANGMIJRE.

Data! this the 31" day ofJu!y, 2903

Before

IHE IION'BLE MR msnca HULm_'ADI ;     % " '

Bdwuu:

Smt Rajamma, 52 yrs
Wm H N Ramachandta __

ciormma, Chowdeshwari  " V'

(BySriNSSm_gq' Gs;-av.;1.,A;;v;},'g; '   

1 % aflrimm'  
Reva-'gas   Soudia

  _ Respondents

(By sm  Raddy, GA for R1-2;

 _ Sri Sii.3-->ash..__foir Eéfixrm & Kumar, Adv. for R3)

  ~  Wm Petition is filed unda' .Art.226l227 of the cum:* 'on
  quash the: order datad 8.1.2007 --~ into B by the I'
=_r€.:Ipomiantandakmt!1::notificMaIondatcd12.1.2G07-~anncxurcCbythc2""

W:-it I'efi'aa 7977     

 ThisWritPe:titien oonIi:1gonforPml'm1inm'yl~Icaringti:isday,the
" Cwrtmadc the foilowing:

JIM



ORDER

mum” has sought for quastug the

mnexuze B issued by the 1″ respondent

l2.1.26(}7 issued by the 2″ nespondent e: V-

According to the    lands aar
Pmmm for the    Council mm
acquisition,     the sites thereon.

Peiitioner far 2335.300/– and the sale
A’ —Depmycezmnisaionerissaid

vSite Nq,T§8 measuring about ‘!8,339.?5 511.3 for the

muket, involfmg the urgency chase under S.l’I(l)

r/”veer–S.V¢.e:_3-t”V Act.

AA Town Plamkg Cmuniloffialexwaiptt

‘ my request to the State Government for aoquéting kind for the
n ofthe Municipality. However, accepting the mtpmt ofthe Deputy
the State Govanmcnt accorded approves for of

flwimmdinwkhxgmgmcycamse. Pm-mmttothesm,SmGwmmxem
var

issued a pmeliminary notification under S.4(l) ofthe Land AcqiIisi1im–_Ast for

establiztdzmmt ofmarkot. Statingthat the State has me: In

clause contemplated under s.17 of the Act for me

market and shopping complex and there is 2 ‘

dis com on the gonad that petitwner’

the Town Mmzicipai Council had not a to me V: *

toacquirethelami

Head the counsel _

snbm1ttec4′ aoqm’ ‘tiara pmmdm’ gs for
acqu1nn’ ‘ g ti:e,_ 1ma£ar :p.”=.;~.w of embusning a mate: yam! and
coamm»; wwx%by ‘foam Mame’ 5113] Council by invoicing the

% V’ V ‘ cr¢ seiied upon the decision of this com in wp

x gm 31.1.2007 when-an’ this Court teferrmg’ to the decision

in .– Union oflndh Vs Mukeah Ham has ma that me

‘ w.invoking’ Qf ‘urgency clause under 3.170} would not by itscifis nficimt for

‘«1I¢:,s;;§§isA5agwuh s.s Amqu1:’y’ ‘ .

Hsirmeassxxbmittedbymepofitiwmntmweisnomgmwyfir

T of the propmy by the 2″‘ respondent for the formation of

cummacialeonxplex, ‘aisfort1:epe1itimae1’tatreat&1isasa;n’eflTminaty
m@caummdms.4aaa§ssfmtaepe4itm:mmfimo¢§g§::§;au

contemplated under as A fifths Act, within on: month _

The gticvamae ofthe petitiomr wou1dVD:~.:_gnet is = *’

henna’ g ‘m man of allowing thc mspondesnt’ 4’i”as7zt’ iaition V

was invoking the utg&c.y_ cm;s§}” ” A
Petition is disposed of