IN THE HIGH coca? or KARHATAKA, BAuaAaoggf ",
DATED T315 232 29th 2A3 or JHLY, 2Q§é~Igff ,f
PRESENT
was Henvaza MRS. JUSTICE1gaxqfiLA'¢fi$LLsRg " _
wax HOH'BLE M. J3sTIcE"fi:n. Kfisn§va$Afifi%£fi§
wax? APPEAL §§.7fii725§%}Lg-u§§§""
BETWEEN a'$ ' EV' "R %'
1 xAnaAmAgA.:n9UsrR:A§, _ . , »
AREAS 9EvE;09MEEr136Aan._' "~~
so 14;3;x2*E§ooa,,'._="-w »
R 9 BUIL$IflG ' 4 vhA
NRL*EAmING¥s
B.:;NsA1.o3£'%.,se':3 0.01; .
B¥_I$S sEcRamaa¥a_=.'
sRx.x.sn:pHAgA ~V"
2 semcxgz LAN%;AEQG§SITION orrxczn
;KIA§B xo-g33~3,'3xd BLOCK,
f"34th CRoss}*~--pA - GA mg
THIS war: Appzax. ::s'~..;.=-;t;x.m t:{s*[_4.i
KARNATAKA I-HIGH comm ACT PRAYIHG '1'£ESE'3.'_]=.A.SEDE was
02:02:: zmssm 1:2: mm mm 'PETE,-.rIoN"Ǥo.?8c:5/aces
DATED 5/3/200?. -
This writ I --. for Prly.
Hearing, this day, :,::i.=2.:a:,t:z2j_--.3, delivered
the followingzn' ' '
J 3'
'. .
iieaxdi for the appellants
and fotwlthe respondents.
2. x>e*.i;i§:i<§§e¢.t,"'2éo.'recs/zoes came to be
' ., V' aigiqg (f}"~{"¢{,Q°*-(" ?€x%%€?xi {V1
dispggsed. af ;i._nV taztms o:E,;'\W. ?.!~$o.3233/2006 and
"g.-',e_::;é:' céfifnngécged fitters disposed of on 08.08.2006
v._V'0ne an<3_A'i~the name.
__”””w.”;>.1~w.3233/2005.
on’ ._t.2’ie …§;::§ui;dV:_it1:at subject matter of the present
writlpeti and the earlier writ petiticms was
Fortunately the appellants
have furnished aopy ef the erder in
In the said writ petition the
– . . .
contention of the petitioner that inspite of ._ the
khatedar representing before the acqaz ng
authorities after preliminary notificatioxi'”»éi;2t1e:f___ _
section 23 {1} of the Xarrxatalca Iz:dg::stri;;zi”=.éLreasVL:”
Eevelopment Board Act (for:;_ shctt
bringing to the notice pffl the A_eutho:i”ties«’ the”:
the interest, right be
tzraxzsferred to thiixi ,i*.. the ‘H°a.cV§uiring
authorities did not ooéagfiiiiiwj-§ith_./t:.th}e.Viisgrovisions of
section 28 “therefore, the
learned notification under
section~28{§f SE the hot wee had in law and then
pxroceededu “same. However, the
prelirninarg under section 28 (1) was
kept’; ‘.1′.’::e, force..v_V_i€1i.re€:ting the parties to proceed
Tumagtter from the stage of sulbrmltting
1 éi;s.V–:*’co::tezq>la.tec1 under section 28 (2)
1 ‘V of the Ae£;2h
3… ;Tf,l’hoz:gh the subject matter of the present
‘:’eszgr;:f.’aV*t:-.azpetition are the very same preliminary and
notifications, unless the facts which were
be khata changes on two occasions — in 1995-96
and later on in 2001. The entries in the RTC
reflect upto 1999-2000} ‘the name of Sangazrninnth
‘L
.. the landlord of the property was ,.
coitunm no.9 of the REC. so far as co’lmQ
it is left blank. The ma };zi*oc§v.ce§:; 3V;z;;f -£1u=_{‘-,
respondent Syed Mnéxanraed «.
onward? for the year only' of Syed Mohanmed " Jinoted. Apparently the in this
case is date<i.V..'3.3..20–G:¥¥…::'V happened
from in order to
convince contention of the
ignorant of the
acquisivtiion right from the inception
is true or Irxotg £22; perzzsal of the records
* .._hy the ——– nplzellant authority we notice
thntu[onr4:"1VS-,:'7.-2001 both syed Mohammad and syed
§Iti.'3..s3':"-:.in V given their objections in writing to
g the "Lanna fisoquisition Officer for the preliminary
it 'jn.£q£2xax”V;;g~.c§:e},”:=,#”‘~
respondent approached the._T’v::ivii .CO’%.1I3’_’2 it
equal rights in they .propgr’%:i§:s””‘§.:; qziéstiaiz. In
2004 by virtue oft’ between the
brothers ccnpr§.’n;’.se:A’Vdécrgé;:’ giving *2
share to _ Syed Hussain.
‘.I.’he:::efor¢V,: ~ til}. 2004 the
date ., j the properties were in
joint ;So.§éess’iV<:_;f1'efijoy:r:e:zt having tenancy
right:-;.. in éegzmzg; :35; that View of the matter,
'' V' "v:*«z1;etb;r…<t}2£.4':. 1'? resjséiiiéient has taken active part in
of aczquisition on 13.'?.2901, can
hé.-i ';§9rqadii3._ this Court contending that principles
'pf natiixfai justice is denied to him by act
V' him as conteznplated under smtion 28 of
' tit; .
‘M2
5. As a matter of fact, the 2
before the Special Land Acquisitiofir g§£§¢e§f’
dis¢l¢ses on 17.7.2001 both the*hrothérrré§#é#re&r
and gave their representatiofi, Fifi fihgfrrfirgrgfr
the matter, the order of rfig learned_S£§g@e»Jfidge *
that the writ pe-tit.V_1″_.on the
1″ respondent shcuiiiflrivg ‘of in terrras of
w.9.3233/zeos da.1;e:;1. =. is not
sustainab1e.fl4 fifi¢:§fQr§;; Twrr “head that the
aPIl>el3.ant fiéeviated from the
provisiiéfiiié ” ‘ {5 f:_>;f ‘A 2 fié» rition proceedings
xaunchrrd 1233-V it-he year 2001 and the
respox_1<:1en.t%.. herej;n§1«3rV'~~-"'LVhas full apportunity of
mfg;-:;::¢sez1'A*E'ezit……:,z«*i,*. the right stage. so far as
ac::qu3;sif£:i:1«v_«6f__ the land of the 1″ respondent both
uzxciér’ and final ;2otifin is
— vazfci. frcm any angle the contention of
itizer,.1″‘ ‘E::espond.ent=’3 counsel is not acceptable to
Accordxngiy, the agpeal is alloWe§._$飣ifi§
aside the orders af the learned $i§fi§e a§§ag%FA
dated 935133.200’? in ‘€’¥.P’.’?805/20€}’6<.