High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Akkayamma vs The Additional Land Acquisition … on 28 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Akkayamma vs The Additional Land Acquisition … on 28 January, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
 

ORDER

The pfititionerf land laser is befom this u

the order passed in EXP, No. A. 3 A

2. H5311! S:-.1 P. msmggg; Igafiea for the
petitioner and Sri K2 gounsel for the
respondent and perused

3. Thé °tVhr:: Executing Court
seeking ,{o1’~» jij1fiVt¥§.1’estAV$§oIati11m. and additienai
compengafiéfig :9? down in SUNDER VS.

UNION OF uimjxa (A:.RA’2_dL2~.1′}’scw 3692). The respondents

_.._hereivn -:,11a_c_1i’ Qbjerffézi vv–.tr3~’t11e same by contending that the:

‘=_am¢«’un_,1;s

‘ijéid.._b£:en gaid and also the petitioner is not

er}:LitAIA’ed%’tcv» interest in the manner in which it has

V been dRéz1.e§”v.a’I’.11§i§ Executing Cerurt While closing the execution

H héié without detail reasons to the claim made has

;f1oé;A::id”‘tfie executign petition by the impugnfid order which

i

4
4

has been called in question in this petition. A4 a

reference has been made by the Executing__–i;J@1ii*t’.viiGii

decision of the Honfble SupzemeM{,’ourt’.”ii:1″”

GURUPREETH SINGH VS LiNION:=£_)!3′ ,m{3?IA’ee(20£je A1′?-stéw

5813), the applicability of VIaidv:iiic§.w:1

Honfble Supreme Court_ to :E3I1ot been
considered by the fhis regazd, it is
noticed that even as per the Execufing
Ceulf, the ‘I:1.:-1s:i_”c,ie*£ie.i}s with regaxd t9
the claim the petitioner was
befere eeifier instances and the
pefitione’-_&v:¢erei the said position, the

Executing C'{:si1I*t is to apply its mind to the feet

fizeiaifiiiig the neiii11’e–«–ef the judgment and award passed in

“:_qtiLei’i:1eta._1Vit= eaee -eami as to whether the earlier execution

peiiticsris Wf:i’5E’j_ ciosed in satisfaction of the Execution of the

— judgniiergtxdeczee and if net as to Whether the petitioner

” ” ; ”’},;vg)ilIti-.’_.’b€ entitled to any fiirther relief in the execution

keeping in view the law laid down by the Horfbie

J

p
C

entitle tha petitions: for the interest which has baen;

by then}.

3. Since these aspects kzf ?Lh:: 3 fi1*aiter ”

reconsiderafion by the Executing_ C–:31:1i”£:v_ keepinvngthé

decisicms noticed above and by ou;£”::«:3T: wiittther in
the nature of the in.Mt1:V1Ae instant
cases and the namm of pgfltiens, the
§etitienez* is enti'{i;:#aA%.1VL:VTto order impugned
in this the same is set
aside. V the City Civil Judge
Bangalorifi Ex,No.703/O12 011 file and

reconsider .. samqjight of the observations made

‘.;’flbOV€_§ %e.11d___ti1; decififisas *rencIered in the abgve meted Cases.

‘ :{Sti11tc1:ti%:wn:svM.e}{Ie left open.

z R$c§fdmgl}7, the petitian stands disposed. of. No

V’ ?§rdé:’TLa;~; to costs.

.4

7, Since the parfies are represented bjsfl

respective learned counsel, they shall appear ~

Executing Court {:11 5.3.2009 as the data?’ bf ‘A V’

and thereafler the Executing

pmceadmgs.

Iud§3