High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Lakshminarayana vs State Of Karnatka Rep By Its … on 8 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Lakshminarayana vs State Of Karnatka Rep By Its … on 8 December, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
l

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALé5_'mf;--VVA'

DATED THIS THE 3TH DAY OF DECEMBER,   *

BEFORE... 

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE mgr 

WRIT PETITION aw.-?§:~:3593t  2ooéV:%'(LA)'«--V  

BETWEEN:

1

SR1LAKSHNI1NARAYANA{_   AA 

45 YRS, S/0 OBALANARASAP.PA,_' 

R/O GUNDAHANUMA'NTHfi.RAY'AN'A.'PALYA
G H PALYa.,'---sw;aNDH,ENAHA;a:,r Posr

'SR1, N;é1§;2.s,1.xg2:3v1AM_i)§2fr-H3"

4:; YRS, S/0':QBALéFiNE:RASAPPA
R] o GUNBAHABEUMANTHARAYANA PALYA
G H PALYA, '3W'AN'D'HENAHALLi POST

;' '?UMKUR.,  '

. §§i 1§m.QAPPz§m
 _ c3.,1"msV, Ts/0 CHIKKANNA
mfg (EUNDAHANUMANTHARAYANA PALYA

  G I~i7PA.I;YA, SWANDHENAHALL: POST

I

mM_I<:~UR

 PETITIONERS.

   '(B:s%Sz-i L RAJANNA, ADV. )

STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP. BY STS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF' REVENUE

M 8 BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD



is sought to be acquired for the purpose of formafion

fl

BAN GLAORE 1

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR

THE ASSIS'FAN'I' COMMISISONERW . 
CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER "
TUMKUR SUB DIVISION V'
TUMKUR

{.1 ~m3;s:5oI§II)EN'I's.
(By Sn". KESHAVA REDD;:Y';~..A.Ci¥}I\._§'C§.!§.i§i:3;  

SR] Sfl'. THIpPEswA1~vIY;--AI3v.'-I?<;aI: __ _ _
SRIVIJAYAKUMAR, ADVH._"F'Q_R 3.4,   _ 

THIS w,P..:j_FI_.LI_:If': U4Ni)iER"'ART§,CLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTa'TU"i'§§)N,  PRA¥!.NQ:,9 TO QUASH THE
PRELIMINARY A INO'I'E'§'IC.AIi"1ON DATED 5.2.2005, WHICH
WAS Pt1BLIsHE'I3.'jVII:I'~ ,TiiE'I'--..KARNATAI{A GAZETFEE D'I'.
3.3.20

O5,HV1£)E -ANX’-B_ ‘AN’-:3′ .-ALSO FINAL NOTIFICATION
DATED 7.’?,12oo6″‘WIIIcI1i.-. WAS PUBLISHED IN THE
KARNATAKA G;AIZE’E7’FEEv_D’T’} 7.7.2006 VIDE ANX~H.

TfiE”%ESPONDENTS TO WITHDRAW THE
PRELIMINAF£.Y’=–._ NOTIFICATION BY HOLDING THE

ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC

PU_RI’?QsE;.’j.,,__ .

“”ATHIS’1é§:’frrIoN COMING on FOR HEARING THIS

KQAY, ‘I’HE'{1OUR’I’ MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORBER

An extent of 7% guntas belonging to the petitioner

of road. The preliminary notification is ‘4
5.2.2005 gazetted on 3.3.2005. To
preliminary notification the petitioner K V’
inter alia contending that the
the purpose of formation
certain malafides. zxcopies’ ‘V V made
available at ‘ the main

contention of fl:1:e*_~ pefitioner is

the solely on the
glnurnfiiethatw the had passed 3 resolution

recoH;mezi(}i1}ig.aeq1iisitien. He further submits that

:'{a'”caq11isi.tion”i’s”‘I”iot for public purpose and it does

évfhiehdefmition of section 3(1) of the Act, in

holdershhi’ and one of them is a member of the

V. A ‘ V’-,,PaI1f(Q§hayat.

L’ the beneficiaries are only two land

/5
(/5

.,,_test of consideration of objections.

2. Mr. Keshava Ready, learned Govt;

submits that objections have the ” ”

L,A.G. and they have been right1Vj{ot:e1Tiuled;

submits that there is no é]_1egatior:- oi’ .1né:§1af’i§ie,,..i.:1 as

much as, it is not stated one of
the beneficiaries is a 2

3. Mr. appearing for
Ff3SpOfldCIlé€:-Q’; land is required
for V as, for formation of a
road. «M it is essential and an the

objeetions ‘mi uthe oetifioner have been considered.

“}{e§ice,E”‘§ie the acquisition is required to be

R

Wifiilout going into the other controversies, sufliee

A that a perusal of the report does not satisfy the

Apparently the

‘V L.A.O. has proceeded to reject the objections solely on

/

the gound that a resolution has been ” _
Panchayath. I am of the viewf_t31ot ” ‘V
considered as consideration of ‘of
Axmexunas C to D1 would ‘
raised many contentions 2 float: is an
alternate road. Eves seriously by

the respondeljtsi’ .___Be considering

the as it must be
are considered

in ” 41A’ on the basis of resolution

passed iihe cannot be the basis for

V. of__t1’1e o%b}e=-sfliions.

I I am of the View that the objections

to be re-considered and the proceedings

.Vo a.res_t:o ooiiamenoe from section 5(a) of the I…A. Act.

Consequently the following order is passed:

(1) The writ petition is allowed in part. The

impugned final notification at Armexure—H under
K .

d/./’

section 6 of the Act stands quashed. The matter staiads

remitted to the L.A.O. for consideration of ~ V.

afresh.

(2) The petitioners who

court shall treat this as n-:)Vfic.e

shall appear before the

Rule made absolute above.

Mr} Keefiavei is mrmitted to
file metric ef. four weeks.

sel-

….. In-dgé