EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD ~_' V'
DATED TI-IIS THE 17th DAY OF' DECEMBER; "
BEFORE__
THE I--ION'BLE MR.JUSTIc:§E H.B1»;LA1§$p xxx
w.1r>. Nos. 6687?6;.7j7/2'0-09: £1,A--éJ§éS}*«--v--H
Between:
1
Maruti Mother Sitavva
61 yrs,,0cc: Pvt--.S.e1fvice _ ' "
S1:/E) Marut3i__Ratr_';avkmj '
3t3._yz5s, ;OCC: Service ..
--H a_;fc:Ti r / 0. village
Tq: Bilagi-»,.._DistE'Bégaikot
V ow r/a' LaX--mt;:1_9Lgzir
Bagalkot. ' "
..PE'TITIONERS
Sri. B.1\V'/VI;':'--'»Vr&1g_fc'1_§i'i., Adv)
*,AMé{_,*
:'a'l_'ir1g=:'<'br'<'=:'V.r.1e1'a1 Manager
_ LA{;_2'& R 8:; R Office
UKP, Navanagar
" V :Bagalkot
The Sp1.Land Acquisition Officer
UKP, Bilagi .. RESPONDENTS
Z (By Smt K Vidyavathi, AGA)
L/ .
These WPs are filed under Articles 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to
consider the representations of the petitioners and.e’te.’,~,vv
These WPs coming on for preliminary:heari–ng._fth.is’
day, the Court made the foliowingzw
O R D E__Ei,
in these writ petitions 22.6
Constitution of India, the petitione’1’s__ haiie~,_s’.tig;ht”:for at
direction to the respondie’nts’=.__ to i “c–onsid§er their
representations vide 8:. D1.
2. The p’etitioners”are t1*re.i”own:ersfi<"§f the Eand bearing
sy.Nos.24j–.1A5§n.d 22,/_ inc of.._£~Ir§:1nihaliivillage measuring 2
acres 23 . .,ar1dr"'measuring 3 acres 34 guntas,
respectively, of the petitioners have been
Vaciqnisred viideapreliniinary notification dated 1 7» 10- 1996.
A 'v,_The_isiecondV respondent has passed the award, but, no
"7corn'pe'nsation" is awarded for the trees. Therefore, the
"p«etit..i'oner's have given representations as per AnnexL1res–
., _('3, D and D1 and they have not been considered.
V' 'Therefore, these writ petitions.
ii.'/,
representations of the petitioners and the writ petitions
are liable to be dismissed.
5. I have carefully considered the subn1i«ssioris”‘1r-ad–e
by learned counsel for the parties…
6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether
the second respondent can~.._be directed ‘consider the!’
representations of the petitioinie=r:s?~.V
7. It is lands of the
petitioners in__ measuring 2
acres Bfrguntas of I-Ionnihal
village, preliminary notification
respondent has passed
the awgardi ‘.ino.iiccrripe’nsation is awarded to the trees.
Therefore,’ thepetiitioners have given representations as
z??x:1ne:A;ures–iVC”‘;ii(31, D and D1 and they have not been
‘ it This Court, in W.P.No.62609/2009, in similar
‘ circums’ta_r:ces, has ordered as follows:
“The petitioners’ grievance is that the
representations dated 19-1-2006 and 12v~11–
2008 for the payment of compensation towards
the standing mango trees have remained
unconsidered. This petition is disposed of with a
direction to the second respondent to consider
the said representations in accordance with law,
it is for the second respondent to decide whether».
there was any standing trees as on the…djate’of 3
the issuance of the preliminary notific.ationxafnd
further to satisfy himself whether thevcojnsexiti’ ,
awarded included the valueuof the star:-ding ‘trees
also. The second respondent p_ is directed “to .
consider the petitioners’, re:presenetati.onsi”
pass the orders thereon ‘within three “months–._’
from today. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs. ‘ it ‘ V * H
3. Therefore,’ is or the writ
petition in terms otiithe’ this Court in
W.p.No.62eo9;/2009fV’ A V i it it
is disposed of, in
ter;p_s…,.. i by this Court in
The second respondent shall
consider lithe” repireseijtations of the petitioners vide
Annexures-“C3,..pCi1, and D1 in accordance with law and it
A ‘ V. “is for .ith.ei second respondent to decide whether there were
“5’anyi”trees the date of preliminary notification and to
“satis_fy -hirnself whether the award includes the value of
. ;the trees also. The second respondent shall consider the
i”~–r.e’presentations of the petitioners within three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pas-S=._
appropriate orders .
Sd/a