-1...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARi'€AT'AKA AT BANGALORE.--.__
DATED THES THE: 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2688
BEFORE
THE HOEAFBLE MR.JUS'I'I(3E RA'J;»w1~A,AL;r§viA*1?fHAT'--';V~' 4'
WRIT PETETION N0.14399 OF ;sa06_"fL.;§~§§;§}
BETWEEN :
Sn'. Abdul Azeez,
Sjo Ibrailimsab Con3:racto11___
Agt::';35 years, 4'
'T.f3.N().5A, W.N.X
Near Shim: Raihvay_'G-ate, "
Bagalkot. ER
(gym. Advocate}
AND :
}¥f3P¥3f:ScI1t€vd its Secretary
to Irrigatiénv ' B¢§artment
M. S{B:"uf%}di1}.g, -- ---
Bangalofe-3.; ~ _v
" " ij' ~i?.__."'7§'he Deputy Clammissioner,
'M'&jd1"Tir;igafion Project, (North)
--. '{§1ub'VRo;:d, D.C,C0mp0un{i,
fitélgaiim.
' T " "The Spa-zriai Lafid Acquisition Officttr,
A ' ~ ..4Ma1aprabha Project No.1
Vidyagiri, Bagalkcat
c{j(-----
4. The Executive Engineer
K.N.N.L M.B.C.DiV1:1.»1
Bagalkot.
ES. The General Manager
(LAQ 85 Rehabilitafien)
Navanagar, Bagalkot. . . 3
(BY Sri R.K.Hatti,Govt. Adv0c§1.e;1'or R911 :53 85
Sri V.Y.I(umar, Ac¥vwat::;L'f0i"~-l7§«~4) ' V
541- ~1:.*' 1;, i.
This Writ Pefiiien is :fi:éc:' V1V;nd¢-:f»A1'tiCIc;sV'V226 and 227
ef the Constimfiofl 'Ci? .1-:1c¥.izi._pray"ing"'toV qtash~ Annexurtir-H, a
letter dated _},«8¥?;§{}(}6," j\é:%;'ii1.i¢13-._" iiy' Respondent No.3,
A1111{~:x11re»J Ndtificaijon “datéd.’jn29=Z?.–:2GQf5 issued by the 211″
respondent …. ” «jntézziationf Letter elated
24-8~2(){)6 ,V issziezfby Iffisponafifint No.5′) vidc AImexu3:e~–K.
This psztition c:on3i_12g’0nT’iTqr.–~heaIiug this day, the Court
made the fol1<§W'B:lgI~ ' ..
petifioncr was acquired by virtue of a
dated 15~5-2004 issued “under
Sectio:i”«:4(1}__”c5f Land Acquisition Act which was followed
” ” ‘:«4A1:§§V”e2..§§»3fification under Secfisn 6 issued on 12-5-2005.
4}§§:ACz}ir1in.§ly, flit? lands of the petitioner welt taken
.:130$S€jSSiOI), of by the respondents. Thextaflar, the
‘VAA”–réspondtznts Wrotr: a letter to the petitioner on }.8″?”20{)6
(>8/\<-~'
-3-
stating that the land has been relaasxi from acquisitigfi
his favour which was followed by the imyugned _
clatad 29-7-2006 withdrawing from thg 8(3(1l}.1-.SiL’l”.’;€).JE:?§;.. u
petitioner has challenged these orders.
2. The learned counsel for t11£3,[‘I3F’1’¥Ii1:i<)'1'.:.z$I;'s:3oz1'f;61?.-'%7}_M,~:: i'n '
tcrxns of Section 1‘? of the Act Of
were taken by the msponétagts po’\i?ér”Vi;1;1der
Section 48 could not have bic!cI’1: from
acquisifion; “”” . V’
3. Lea.I§}ed._ :Vfc~;f”t}:§:évv—-éIfi1′ respondent submits that
the iand beizig ;;io~t feésifiié purpasnzr, they have taken
a decisicgi1″tewithdras£% from the acquisifion.
A I’ head flié””Iééi1n£:d counseis appearing for the
5. §xa’§i%a_i(‘;1::s of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition
” could’ invokeé provided the p'(}$Sf:SSiOI1 of the lands
Q54?”