High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivalingappa T Ganiger S/O … vs General Manager on 15 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shivalingappa T Ganiger S/O … vs General Manager on 15 September, 2009
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
1.

WP No.19764 of 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
BEFORE '% '"

TI-IE I-roxvgnm MRJUSTICE AJIT J.,G,I}:NJ:A:L T T

WRIT PETITION No. 19754] 2obZ'1L;A¥R'Eé)   'V, e 7

BETWEEN:

Shivalingappa T.Ganiger, _ 
S/ 0: Thirakappa Ganjger,.<"" * 
Age: 49 years, '-- " I 5 V

. Basappa, S / 0:. Tirak" Ge.nigef',v_  

A/ a: 47 ye§aj'SA,.,V,:,Z'* 

. Nagétfjfjva   " ' » 

S / oV:.._AThi1'aké1ppa4'Gai1ige.r,' "
A/8.2 45 3r¢a1's,, "  a  H 

Ramacheiiiciirapi)a, ;A/fie: 34 years,

.V  A"/.5}: 59 3}'e"a§1é1v~s,

' V.petm5tsn,e1~s'e--N,¢s.5 85 6 are

" . Sfo Pahiad1'Naik Sollapurkar,

. Ye11.ka<ppa,

VS/o Appanna Sanshi,

V A/_a: 54 years,

i Ramjansab R.G0the Mujavar,

since deceased by his L.Rs.



WP No. E9764 of 2007
: 2 :

7a) Rajesab, S/0 Ramjansab
R Gothe Mujuvar,
Age: 48 years,

713) Hussensa, S / 0 Ramjarzsab
R Go-the Mujuvar,
Age: 44 years,

7a) Hussenma,
W / o Kutubuddin Girani,
D/0 Rarnjansab Mujuva1',,__
Age: 40 years,  

8. Narayanappa V.Naj.k,_ 
S/0 Venkappa Naik',-._  _      
A/ a: 69 years,  A    ,'_f.,.;_3PETITIONERS

A1: are R/oi: 
Tq: and     

(By Srfy "RV§Ad:'§eeate)  

AND:

1. Geézinerai Mahager, ,

'% A'  é Lar'1c'i-.'Aci;1;isitiori;"U.K.P.,
'  V 'I'IaVa:Iagaer';' vat: Bagaikot.

2; Frhe Ada':. S151. Land Acquisition

Officer, Upper Krishna Project,

(UI~:P),No.2, UKP,

 _ ;N'ava:1'agar, Bagaikot. ...RESPONDENTS

(A}_3’y~Si~i. R.K.Hatti, HCGP)

WP No. 19764 of 2007

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and of
the Constitution of India praying to
respondents to include the statutory interestiatv V’
of 9% p.a. from 7 the first year at the 9/43 K”
p.a. for the next subsequent

marked as AnneXure–B.

This petition coming on prelin’ii1i.a_1j} hearing in
‘B’ Group, this day, th4e”~CoL1rt following:

was acquired for the
purpose of’ Project. Consent award was

passed. It’:3pp.earS respondents deleted Sy.Nos.4/7,

4/ arisi’ngV___from the same notification for some

*teel1nicval’~reason, but however, later awarded Rs.70,000

for dry and wet lands. It appears

T_that etheggzietitioners gave a representation to enhance

he eornpensation. Petitioners filed W.P.No.25369 / 2005.

This Court allowed the writ petition directing the State

WP No. 19764 of 200′?

to pass supplementary award. The grievance the
petitioners is that the supplementary award
but however, the interest as directed by
W.P.No.25369/2005 is not given’;-«tiepnicieii All

petition.

2. Apparently, this CoL;rt;.,:_while ‘disposing of the
writ petition has obser’ve”d_ E ii
“In the pass a
supple1nye.nta.ry to’ pay the said
arnQLir1tVy_V’toi’1–:thVe .pet’i:Vtion.esrs,5′ the respondents
wou1dhe.”1Vi.ah1e ‘toyi”p.ay– interest at the rate of
15% ‘p.a.’ .Vonfjthe..y_:e’nhancement amount to
_which'<th'e petitioners are legitimately entitled

,, Q Q .

it of the petitioners is for the statutory

be11_ei”1ts,. .’i’h-e’iV.representation given shall be considered

the land Acquisition Officer in accordance with law

three months from the date of receipt of this

.,order.

‘K

WP N0.19764 of 2007

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Mr.R.K.I-Iatti, iearned Government ”
permitted to filed memo of appearance’ V ‘

4″

Krns*    _  V