WP I\¥0s.6E3034--36 of 2009
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
mrgzr) THKS THE 8%: DAY 09 SEPTEMBER 2099
BEFORE '1r
THE HON'BLE 1vm.JUs'rIc1: AJIT J.G;!15iJr§1'.1r:r-f
WRIT PETITION Nos.65034~_3,6s/2009 f
Egzgfiflgfl: ; 'A .> «r
1. Kefilappa, S / 0 Shivappa '
Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculfurist,
2. Bhimangouda, _ ._ _ .
S/' 0 Dharmageuda Patil, ' «l - _
Age: 55 years, Occ: Ag::"ic1,11vt_ 1§_i5t;','~.v ._
3. i) _
E?-_/ 0 -. I-'Iiriyai 1-go' LI,TcEa_eVPati'1, ~
Age: 48 yeaisg .O'C.ei"Agricu1turist,
i1')A.--Sharrka.rge1icia;". V .
8/ 0 Hiriy"-angouécia Patil,
'A-ge: 4.6 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
" .;m'y E3é;sa'1iVagVeuda,
. S/'e--'V.Hiri=yangouda Patil,
A_ge:_V43 years, Occ: Agrictflturist,
AA residents of Hadrihal village,
V V'Fq: Biiagti, Dist: Bagalkot. ...PETITIONERS
(By Sri. B.M.Angadi, Advocate)
WP Nos.65034-36 of 2009
_A....N 3.-.;
1. The General Manager, _
LAQ and R 85 R office,
UKP, Navanagar,
Bagaikot.
2. The Speciai Land
Acquisition Officer, M, «.
UKP, Bilagi. ,V ;
(By Sri. R.K.Hatti, HCGP)
These petitions .fi1ed- _1.;r_1der Ariticles 226 and
227 of the Constitution ..of..'Irtdia.iprvayir1g to direct the
1"esp<mder1t to«._co:ijiSi_der'the represelitations produced at
Annexure--C o'f'{ftheV..vpetitioners and to pass
supplementary"-award _for"(I) "tot he? petitioner No.1 for 74
COC()]'1L2f tea*k?wo~od (small), (ii) to the petitioner
No.2 for 26-60'gra.peis"8,3g"'1--lO mango {sma1E) and (iii) to
the pet'1'tion«er 1\Io.'3;o*.fo1*389..-~grapes, 123 mango (small);
and etc. .--
,.«.iT'he~se peltitiorgspcoming on for preliminary hearing
it "this""day-,"o'the..Court made the following:
ORDER
AA _ “the 1′ petitioners claim. to be the owners of certain
It is their case that pursuant to the Preliminary
E\Ioti{ication dated 22.08.1996, the land was acquired. It .._
,«r “H
WP Nos.65034–36 of 2009
is not in dispute that an award is passed on
23.07.1998. The grievance of the petitioners..__ is,
compensation is not awarded in respect of
standii-tg on the land, but, however, only it
few trees award has been passed.WIt”is’1
petitioners that they have given to
respondents to pass a suppleittientaitir
of the left out trees. petitioners is,
the said representations–ldare:itn()t.,:_:co’nsidered. Hence
these ‘~.-\’z’z’t petitioitjis.’
BilVE..’Angaldi.;::learned counsel appearing for
the petitionerisVvsiibnéilts the report of the Officers of
the .. itself’-.dis_closes that the there were several
éioif v.:h«i.i_ch compensation has not been paid, hence,
re;3rc>.::;enltat’ionrslare required to be considered.
R.K.Hatti, learned Government Pleader,
l..jjsLiA;l:}ri7:.’iAt’sthat the award itself discloses that the Land
‘ Acquisition Officer has noted the existence of the vine
WP Nos.65034»36 of 2009
yard and compensation has been determined and,
insofar as the remaining trees are concerned, a finding
is recorded that no such trees were found at
deterrnination of the Compensation. l l V
4. I have perused the
Acquisition Officer. Apparently,
fiied after a lapse of nearly the
award would clearly .diS§_’.:los’elllthat.lon_a joint stirvey it
was totmd that there and one
tree and 123 trees. ind’eed,f”o.nyerification during
l11SpG(‘l’.l’O§1′. it there were only 2125 grape
trees azmd’thevvin’c_on3.e” frorn the said vine yard is also
taker; Insofar as the remaining trees
r:on,cferried, it was found that those trees were not in
e§:is’t–enoe.i–.i.”pj~:In.deed, it is to be noticed that the
cc>mp<:.r'isation is determined in respect of the vine yard.
XfHiVei§"<:t.::;:? question of granting compensation for the left
otgxt trees would not arise. Having given my anxious
Q4;
WP N0s.6S034–36 of 2009
consi<:1e:"ation, I am of the View that the request o.f__ the
pe%;.it:é(:me1's to pass a supplementary award in
the i<-;=I'L out trees does not arise.
Petitions stand rejected.
Mr. R.K.Hatti, Eearneci«,:Goveri;1m.e1Ita is V
permiueci to file memozm” appear¢:r;¢¢*:n foufvvweeks.
aC» aaLjae§5sSd/*
._u,xW_JUDGE
K m S