High Court Karnataka High Court

Karnataka Khadi Gramodyoga … vs General Manager on 23 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Khadi Gramodyoga … vs General Manager on 23 July, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
W§11514.0?

IN THE HIGH COU'!&'i' OF KAR1§ATAI{A

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS 'mm 23:- 'A-c:,I;:<::';fH:;rxI OFFECER

.uPETflXORER

:"RES?ORDENTS

H < _ 4 }'1'§:i.s pefitiofl is fiicei u.:2.{1€:* Articlas 226 arssi. 22'? of £5,216

--  €;r3I1S7tit11tio1:z of Inciia praying ta mofiify the awajrd d'£.3G.3.2E}G7

bait pmnounced 011 45,200? vids: 33xI1f1fiXT.1I'Ei"B, and ciircct the

 VV ":'ésp011dent ta} award i_tri:e'r€:$t on the zilihzmced ssampensatioigx
* mid also mtsmst an the additional marktét value and solarium

fmm the date 05 Ehti'; origxinai award dated 21,4199? till the
(1318 of gmymeut as pm" Section :28 of thfi Act.



Wj;)1i514.0'?
Z'.
This petition coming on for pre}in1ina1y hea1'iz1fg i11 'B'

group this day, tile Court madf: the foliowing: "

ORDER

1. Petitio11er-Socicty was the ownrmof éthej VV

vzvc: N<;u13'?i measuri11g 895.53 sci, mr't's.A~'T'w1:;ch~ Ifiiafiing

open space. cf 2179.53 sq. n1ts'. _ 'Fhe sajt}. str11ci%_u3e-..:._i;s»..s1::quiredV . L'

by the respondent for Ifigper '1?;'0je;<}t.' _%I%§1r,*;!§:)t1<;:;z'«
Society did not file ""HLC§§é*J¢'r, some persons
whose lands wereV.acq11i;7z::dv u;1dt%1T_:thé; $'é§$fi¢" 'Véfiotification fled
Rfifflmflcff iéf;-"-.f:&.vVf;%;:i§t"£"':Acq11isitien Act (for

short 'figs f5v;','tV'jV.V ' V':3§§ffl'£J'€:£1:é%:¥7§iC*I1' was later Enhanced in LAC

N0. 1757'} §§W&3Ver,,_v’ac( fi1fiing ta tbs: pfititionar, the I’€Sp€1I.’£1d€I}t has 119?

Vé:’£i§¥2aj’dEé§.”ié.t€IEf${” from the date 01′ Qriginai award and interest

_ c:;-ta” –$:;s§ati§,:m and additional market value. Fiance, this wrii

Eggéjtéon is filfifi’

\~J”‘?

wp1I5I4.(}’?

2, There cannot be any diS}9L1I’,€ that

entitled to izgltcrest: from the: date of Qgjiginal

no record tea ShOW as to when the gjossessiénéfis taken”

He is also entitled to interest -93 Sblafizzm v;3§idi1:iona1VV:L’

market vaius in View of the judgfiicggt qf C/(:§{11rt in fh4:?_
case of BLENDER vs. t3z~ij_¢;i;._n: 2O( }A1 SC 3516).
This court. by I’elyi:1g has been
directing respo;1(}’&”§:is the date of
original s§)}ati11m and additional
market ffzé:}i;i£:”~.;f«;f::5. :1/s 28% of the Land
Acquisifiegfii V foflowing (}I’d§i’I’ is made:

ResponLd:=:nt ?§§}–,2A’–isV’:l:{reci:ed to award interest :31: the

~”‘.s5::1i1a”i§:_€:’ié2c1E§0mpenSé1t:i3i1«’i1’csm t}f1<:=: date {sf thfit origilm}. award, if

'–;3c:st.,.V'a}Jr¢a:iji'~gra§1*t–ed. Respondant No.2 is further dhectcd E0

Vibe additional mayrket value and Soiatium if

–mt a11%éag2g,>}.ax§%a;aed; Writ petifian is afiowed,

Sd/-‘
JUDGE

aim/~