Mrs Seetharathna K Bhat vs The Special Land Acquisition … on 18 February, 2010

_ 1 ._
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS T H E 18"" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2010
BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SABDUL   V.

WRIT PETITION NO12325 01? 2008(:.x»g}_;j<r-:'£3:  *  I

BETWEEN :

MRs.sEET1«~1ARA*r1»1NA KB}-IA'I'
AGED 61 YEARS  

W/O 'I'.S.KRISHNA BHAT

NOW R/A No.25, 15'"--I MAIN

18'"? CROSS, J.P.NAGAR ..    

V. PHASE, BANGAL0RE_--'::.6oc.178:. .  ~   " « . 1. . . PETITIONER

[BY SR1 s.:?.sHAN1{AP,., S1f:Af10R~vC'dVUNV'sEL FOR
B.L._.A€:I*IARYA) *  '  '

AND: 

'1'm~: SPOECLAL LANE} .ACjQ'L!FISITION OFFICER
KARNATAKA I~I'O.USIN'€_} BOARD
CALMJRY I-BI--IAVAN'

 v ' 13A'NGA.I,_oRE~56008-«I-« * ....RESPOI\3IZ)I£N'I'

 ' --:.BY--s14{I..¢I3A;sAVARAJ V. SABARAD. ADV.)

._ T,%IIS.T0VI€I'I' PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 228
AND 22'? OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. PRAYING TO

  ASIDE THE ORDER DATED .I7.7.2008 MADE IN
A L.A§'C.NO. 5/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CVIL JUDGE

_ I -.,fSR.DVE\I}. BANTWAL, D.K. {A.E.\INI3ZXURE~A] AND DIRECT
  THE COURT TO CALL FOR A REFERENCE FROM THE
  ..._RESPONDENT--I.AND ACQUISITION OFFICER. IN RESPECT

OF THE DISPUTE REGARDING SY.NO. 26/24, 26/25.
26/ 35 AND 26/38 OF AMTADY VILEAGE. I33AI\I'I'WAI.. TALUK.



_.2_

THIS VVRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDE {-3 THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED TI'"U.*: FOLLOWING: T "

ORDER

The p€UtiOI’1€l’ was the owner of the.V.beari’r”1g.V

sy.Nos.26/24, 26/25. 26 /35 zmd[:26 pi”~Aii:_:iaciy’

Bantwa1Taluk. T he said Lands wOe~i7e”‘a–1cqui3<edAhy the';

Government for the benefit of;'Vth:e'§{e'1ri1ot.ake1"i-fotitsing Board.
An award was ;_.)£isseci:l':;3.j Ofl'H1".A2V.Ax]_999. The
respondent sent notice:_ of the Land
Acquisition '}]..3.1999. The
petitioner Land Acquisition
OIi'ieei*"see'kViiei5;g_ on 27.5. }999. Since
the Leiiidtt did not refer the m21tt.ei'. the

petitioiiei' 'ii:.1aCie_a',:1. Aa:_ppii'cation before the Re{'ei*en(:e Court

uI1':d"er;.S6::jti.oI1 "I8{-3–}V()f the AC1! l'€f(_f1i€TSf.i1'1g the Refeitiiee

.Cour1t*v.1,ot for the applieatiion seeking 1'€f€l'(:'I1('.€. The

.F:eferer1ee*'fCoi1rt has dismissed the said appiication on the

CV grotlild of delay.

2:’ Having heard the learned Counsei for the parties, I

Ve_1i’ri~of the Vi€\V that the Cotu’t below was not _j1ist.ified in

‘ ~ .–;’eje(:I’.ing the appiieat,i.on. As iioiiced above, notice under

ii

…. 3 _
Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was se1’ved”‘Qr1 the

petitioner on 11.3.1999. In State of Kagniita-1%j1….V”Js.

Laxuman – AIR 2006 SC 24. the Apex

fer making an appiicati0:a seeki1ig'”‘1″‘e-i.e1’ei3ce..i:é’-vtdiiree-eyee;§s

plus 90 days from the date of éL::(:i’i…_1a] ()1′>.(‘,’:.1′.{1’SC ..()i’.;é;etiG11

namely. when he makes E’1i’1_’\E3pp]iCé1Ii_()11.u\K”itli’i~.t’iwTiflé time’

prescribed by Seetiozri 18(2)——Vdi’v–.ii’1e Act.=71fhe.;’3efoi’e, the

application Filed by the”pet.iti–Qi1tei’} se’eii§iiig’~»1fefe1’e1’1ce was well

within time. _ _ . – i

3. In ti’ie}1’e*3u1t,:;__ t.he–~W14i’t P-(‘:.i1i~w?_i.Q1V’i succeeds and it is

a(?coi’2ding1}A/1 A2E1’9′.”i’._oV\-*_.{eV2c1ea1*id”‘i.h_e oifder dated 17.7.2008 passed in
i,Ax15/2007ofiiheKu§kmrnwiJudge(sn£nt}&.1wiFL;

Barityvat, ,1?’-‘;’,l'(:’:.’.L’,)}/’9’E]{.iE1S1″1€d. “Fae petitioner has filed the

e1p”pi:ic:;;tt’.i()1} as x}f)€lT…..A’1’ifl€}{L.l1’@ ‘F’ SC'(L’1{i1’1_§_§ 1’efe1’e11r:e within

» t’i’m_e. Tile vt_19ia1__ Court. is directed to proceed fL11’th€)1′ in the

.11′:-ta_t.tei*’vifi’ ..;,t(:c§)’;?L*ia11(:e with law. No costs.

Sdfl
JUDGE

93LY/