High Court Karnataka High Court

Chikka Malayya @ Chikka Mala vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Chikka Malayya @ Chikka Mala vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
 -  MYSW: 71355'-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA;   & "

DATED THIS THE am my OF 

      
THE HON'BLE M12.  'AJI'l'. J 'GVEJN-.:3§AL

WRIT PETITEON No 3;71?9k VCJI?.':§'{)§§1i;€>"»{LA--I(IADB)

BETWEEN: %  

Chikka Mé:1ayya.@  Maia  
Son of,Adcyeg6Wda,_ -.   "  
Aged aboutfig'? 

Occ:  %   _' *

R] o Chi}gka_vyaI1a'  = 
Pandavapura Post,  " V 
Narijgazagud 'i'alu'k,v' '

 %(k}3yw VS1*i K.I:3V.V  Adv.)

   1   State of Karnataka

_ "' why its Under Secretary
'  Ccmcmc as Industrial Dcptt;
35 Develapment, M.S. Building,
Ambodkzar Veedhi,
Bangalore- 1.

2 The Commissioner
Karnataka Industrial Development
Area, Nrupatunga Road,
Bangalore.

Petitioner.



3 The Special Land Acquisition
Otfieer, Kamataka Industrial
Development Board and   
Range Oflice, 

_ Respondents. ' " ,

( By Sri Keshava Roddy, ‘fo_1f
Sri K.P. Ramesh, Ady. for.R2–.e:1d*-»R3)

This wI’it._petitis3Iz.:is~. rim} 1iiidet;–‘i.;’ai1:icles 226 and
227 of the _C0fi$tittiti0n,_V’V.quas1’1:._fli6ifn0fifiCatiOfl dated

25.9.2006,_fl¢rideI1§eA:;11exui’:e-A,_, 3v

en for orders this day, the
court made the foliowifigé’

7fioRDER

‘irreflle preliminary notification dated

section 28(1) of the KIADB Act, an

of 20 guntas in Sy. No. 143 is sought to be

A notice was issuw on 11.7.2005 under

eeefion 28(2) of the Act to the petitioner. The petitioner

_,v___filed his objections, but however the said objection did

not find favour with the L.A.O and a final notification
under section 28(4) of the Act is issued on 25.9.2006.

Thereafter notice is issued on 30.10.2006 under section fl

‘/

/

28(6) of the Act to surrender “‘ it
acquired land. The said acquiesitiizxziii %

questionwinthis writ V ._ V

2. The only ground on which acquisition is

challenged is that of
section 28(3) ofthe Aet.__ it

3-

4. The ” objections filed by the

respc;ude_I1t .4 that the petitioner was

V. “flied Iiiisiiobjections and the objections were

at this point of time the petitioner

H V’ _ canfiot to say that no opportunity was gvon to

_. ‘; ,_peti’i:ifoz1er and there is violation of principle of

justice. Another factor which would weigh

T the petifioner is that the communication issued

‘ it by him to the beneficiary of the acquisition, in as much

as, he has oonsented for acqiiisition subject to the fl

J