High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Rathnavva N Hosagowdar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Rathnavva N Hosagowdar vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
'   ":311§.:,R.a,t:1':_1a3nma1«;.S.

'  fg!.:1y~--:?,+::~i¢ it Baaavaraj, Adv.)

:24 mg HIGH comm' 01:' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE:
DATEQ Tms THE 1';'TH my 0? sgwamggm 209$. 
BEFORE  1' V' 
THE Hozmm MR..JtI$'§'ICE s. £15i§I;37tZ':'1»'l9fI'.z1«f';'#E_:Vl'.7§"rl:§iV:v    
war: PETITIQH 39.12am/2oef"3    

BETWEEN:

1, S311. Rathnawa N. I-I<:;.s:*.+.::sTg{3*;1?s:1'e:z11*  ' "
Wfe). J}-i. i'§am,a§)pa V  _ .
Aged abeut     V   " 
Mana:an%La'§%'3«ai€a--:-_V _    '
Behind. 'i.'x'§xI.'1;C«q:_11€gé'  

  
f)ava_11age_zi§f[_..   -- 

2; Sri,A,':";}i£1Tisi1VV   
S30, Latgz; Suhha' R39
Ag§:-- about  years " 

D:-gr N{3.258 1}'-.140 _
 i-'.P11Iwiaifl--;R0ad
' =:sz:_.c:.g::.v.fA{B2oc1<
 VD_3;va:::~';g%::ré':A.T._ " '_.

Wg' G. v'--Shr':kka§pa S. Najk
 £§gé:(1a7E:'5h"_.Cross, 13.3. Extn.
 Eavanagerc .. PE'"E'§'T'i«;)NER:~}

 



AN}? :

1, Thfi State of Karnataka

By its S€tc:*eta1'y

Department of C«01fI1111t3I'<:f:

Ami Ine:lust:t"ies;

MP8! Building  b
Bangaioré ~» $68 691  '

EN}

The Spscial Lana ACC;11i.Siti()I1 QffiC€1"7__ V' _  A ~ ~
Eiamataka industrial Area Dcvcigypmcut E»:-a:<;i  A  
Zonal Office     
Nmpaihu11g.a Road

Bangalore

3. Thfj Dcvelepment Qfficfiéf  "    
Karnataka Exzdustxial 1X:g*:?:a_§3--f:v::§.0pzz1k5i:i Baejti
Lckikerc :n coming on for Prelimi:1ar§»* Hearing
'B' '€3:'c::1jgs--fi:i:%_ éiafgg.  Court mafia {ha foficwfizg;



ORDER

In this case, the pt:t,i¥:£¢3ners contend that _tf_§éy _
owners of sites canred out cf Sy. No.5
Davanagcrt Taluk, Davanagere L geéfiriofiévzis .’

have pmduced a copy of thflir’ sale déegis as L.

C ta C3 respectively. Kt v..wC’0t_1tc:1t’it:€1’&_VVA :}I’;he Em’
respondent has acqnit3:r:j(i._ :.1;:11tc17-.;x?itho£ttVAt10tice as
provided under Section 28(2) Industrial

Area Developr;1’e’ntL:VZ1f5oa:t::i z”_.t”.?€.’,’; 2

V171′. 2 Lcaxézssii-»._LCQ1ii;sEI– fiat 2nd and 3″ rcspondgnts
subnzits t;i3.at” latxds qtiestiou have bE.’6I1 acquired 1’11

they is fi1rther submitted that a meeting

of Committee under the chairmanship of the

;’°?°°

“r

Qffiflfl
:7uz>G zé .

DEp3.1ty* .””‘~Cori3V’nfissioner, Davangerc, was held on

28;’€38.2.i}O8 The committee has .recomm¢:*1:1cied for payment

::>f; gromvpénsafion Rs. 155/ – per 3q.£or the; residcntiaiiy

‘ A.c£mv.éx’ted pmpertiesl sites.

it is submitted that the

ptztitioners also being the pumhassrs of sites may make

it

96 go;

appropriate application seeking paymernt sf coxnfiénééation

and the autllorities will cxaminc such it,

found that they are enfifled for be’ .

paid compensation at the afc> zesajdA rai:et..’ it

submitted that thc 2113 and-._3’d 333?: ;

similar stand in an identica’,i I;:V’;§:£t£;r ‘~’..’.«*’,_ ff.’V’:No:§f»610{2O08
disposed of an Vs. The
Siam of a statement 01″

obje<:rt;io11s.; ' the s"tat£;*.men£ of

ohjectiofis petition may also be

t1*cfi¥ted= as bfijefitifjn, .ft_I:iis'\rs%rit petitisn.

Ba-.321' Ifirarned Counsel for the petitioners

thaf V'tI1:…§:efitioncrs do net pmss the Writ petition

' 39 far z«_15§'v¥1;e challenge to the acquisition prociieéislgs are

._ ' ~ .

~ «A % i_<":Q..{¢.,5§2bc9:' –

T0333; –

* A .<;?<:n'ns:%:V:r'1fit:}::i, 'TI=Vi:i" they are paid compensafien at the rate sf

fig. V-éfper Sq. folr acqiiisifion of their lands.
* 1. A

Ki.

vs

–)€ Oasnrccézll

\/x’o%o.C.eua.t~ ‘W
0 r-z:9_45\,aQa9.e.J
f¢§'[0-c9.009-

C£’4’\9\(‘{)r:’
“».7UDG7i3~

4. ‘ Since the respondents have ”
campensation at the rate of Rs.155/– per s::;.PVfg):”-.tV.l3za.._}ia.r’1ci.°3
in question, it is not nficessary to

the acquisition pmcccdings ha{%i:_;gi”.V’.;~e:ga$ti:_~A is” n

submissiozl of the leaxned Ctmfizacl for

Consequently, I diréct v?.}:1.%;x >v__:3Y”(;{ ‘-ffis

gouciéntivto pay
% 3g. ____

1%

Compensation at the r*atte ciéf[_ ‘Afar acquiring
the site 1’11 vvéubject to the
petitioners ;%spt:ct of the said
lands ” H 1

Writ ;)£:tit:icf§’i1fi’a=a or accordingly. No costs.

Sd/-

Judge