High Court Karnataka High Court

Narayanprasad Appaprasad Pathak vs The Executive Engineer Mrbc … on 7 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Narayanprasad Appaprasad Pathak vs The Executive Engineer Mrbc … on 7 March, 2008
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
B

in-pl

IN THE HIGH coum' 01? KARNATAKA AT BANGALf3'R:_"'..A'

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH,~..':2?OO£f§     *

RA.Al\!PRAg..AD APP;A_§:2As3A1::'%:5A'r§iz§gK% 
AGED ABOUT 48 YRS oer; AGRICU'Lfl.I_RALV__
RI; Am H N0 4':-3AGA\'rAv|"{_  '  .__    .

1'11
LD RLYBLI

4

A.JAYPRASA.D*isi:+?PAii>i2Aéé;1)AI FHTHAK'
AGED'A'BO1AJ*'3-' 44' 21ms'*--oc%c AGREULTURAL
R/min No 4:2 Q.AvAIJ'GA!.L:

OI.-I) HUELI % '    

HUBLI '2.  1-'t:71'1'nuI.w:;r-cu
RI. HANIL V KATARKI, ADVOCATE)

Va. .-

THE EXECUTIVE.  
TQ NARGUND
Di'"'T' Di-IAR'v'v'A'D

C DIWSEQN N0 1

«K
\



2 ASSISTATN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

MRBC SUB DIVISION
AL-AGAWAD!

TQ NAVALGUND DIST DHARWAD   
3 STATE OF KARNATAKA ,
REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIQNER    _ E * 
DHARWAD E  ..."~RESPONDEi€TS 
(BY SRI.R.KUMAR HCGP FOR R1) " " = ._  E  

 Ems RE-S QNDEN T0

~.;- .. w - . -...

mas we F!LED PRA.VI?-£:Cv3 fro,  _ AA 
ASSESS THE JUST AVCOMPE;NV$AT'iv'C_5VN: ow"  BASIS 01» THE
PRESENT MARKET; P§QR_ iI:'!«iE4.LA1N'DVSU'EiMERGED WHICH IS
6 ACRES AT SY.€NO;5();i{--2 I'I*J:.:_I\[_1_WAL.Gt:JVi*IDA'ii'ALUK AND DISBURSE

THE coMPENsA'moN maestro  PETITIONERS.

This iJv1it~ petitioij1--o11"for hearing in 'B' group before
the Court today} Court  following:

  claim that they are the owners of land in

 RV No.4') 1,312 mea. 1 ring 14 acre 27 gu:it_-s situated at

.- «J - 

amw. I-rmnuu-q.

 Navalgurid  It is their case that 6 'C'If:S of kid in the ""'d

h  No; was submerged for construction of barrage but they are

 uot paid the compensation. Hence the prayer of the petitioners



U.)

is to direct the respondents to assess and pay the corapeiisation

in respect of the land lost by them.

2. I have heard the learned co1i1_1se:i._fojr A fip”i’1e ”

learned counsel for respondentsrl 2

petition is liable to be rejected the have an
alternative remedy 11,/s T of: Irrigation Act
1965 under whwh ‘fr. V A l V
the Deputy into and settle the
claims and coiapensafion, if any, which
should be aiwpardetl the petitioners could claim the

‘iT’hr-‘9″ l1a–.eti~ counsel also relied upon T. e

clcci_sionv_»»repo1’ted. iii” OF’ ‘M’ ‘ RN ” ‘

coMs:ss1oNERi s OTHERS Vs., DHULAPPA RACHAPPA

:7″t,__xMUClLll9T’DIv.V&u74QTT:lli3RS, (ILR 2001 KAR 5525) wherein it has

helcl No. 195 _/ 85 and connected appeals and R P

C-I-LILL Ll

‘:..’V’é’1:’Ib_nfi’:V”‘.’V VI-1}-s _ niu R F A +1-nnf -nr-nd_n1~ Snnfinn n1-nil 5 of the

V’ the petitioners have to prefer claim before the Deputy

.(‘3oH1Inissioner to seek their nedressal.

y
‘”\

4

3. In View of the said decision, this petition is of.

Petitioners are permitted to make claim before

No.3 Deputy Commissioner, Dha1’W”a1’«.

the provisions Teffféd
receipt of the copy or from the deteiioif {ti1e”app1icéitiofi.

akd* 4. VA _