High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Shivalingaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivalingaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN 'I"}:~IE HIGH {ZOURT OF KARNA'I'Alnue Department
_ Lsmd Acqufisition 1 8: 3, M 5 Building
 Bangalore

   smtrazzvmeeta WioB Ashok, 453."

 V 6 Sm! Annapooma 'Win Boxegowda

W



'! Sm:  a WfoBoregowda

5-7 are rfa Udayapura Village
Dandiganahalli Hobli '
Chaumarayapanw Tq, I-Iassan

8 Tahsi1dar,Channm*ayapamaTq V   .y  «.  
I-IassanDi5tric1 _   

(By Sri M Keshava Raddy, AGA forVE3L1§4 &  ._ 
Sri L Psuresh, Adv. fer R5 & 6; Sri P  .
Adv. for R7)  "

Tlfm Writ Petition is""'fi.i§d.  :,A§ét;:>;:z$%227 of the Constitution
praying to quash the notification wdztedf20;2.2.()O8v  A by the 4"'
It'2SP9Il(3£'aIl1, etc.   .  = A  V " 

This    g€.::;'{fo;._nr-ien,'; : ..   the Court made the
foilowing: '       

93.953

Petitiongr has seam'  the notification datad 20.2.2033 W

V annexygsin so} fat  N033 to S of land in sy.1-:e.15 of Baladhare

 « H' A' '-}f  Taluk as arbitrary and also for such other orders.

  'V agiggaisifion of property for the purpose of mtahlishing ITI

Co.vi'1e.g éA  College, iand to an extent of 9.30 acres is sought

   be acqazifegi by the Govmmaent. In this regard, the main contention efthe

%  is, a original suit was filed and injunction was obtained by the

  "  against rcswndeaxts 5 to 7 mud when the acqtfisition is sought for,

335"



the respondents have some fotwmi seeking for  

identity ofthe property is aiso disputed.

Heard the connect repraenting the»~pa1_-ties ~

Pleader.

The main gievance of the petifiaagx is, he 53. ”

of injunction before the Civil Court, w 3116 tlzeirespmxdents,
they have taken a different \?i::~saz{‘ as to identity of pmpexty is
coneemed. When the respondents are

claiming themseives, in the beginning,

have mm a* Ciizil Suit. Now, after the acquisition

proceedings, uirzzaflie .event_ of eompensation, the amount so awmded

_ would.§pevt6*ti1e the petitioner.

A _ ‘ Pei counsel for the rmpendcnts submitted that the civil suit is

property belongs to them and they are entitled for

eon§pensa§iura._ A

.. mvflzemseonhmifizedjspum isis1tespeetof§dentityof&zepmpe:ty

_ wh’icE:.§s sought to be acquired. According to the petitioner, property belongs

VA whereas acconling to respondents 5 1:07, it belongs to them md they

axe in possession. In this regard, a civil wait is pending and it fihe

petitioner to seek for early disposal of the mattar by %

on the basis of the smvey neport by appainting a b

the civil suit is disposed of before the civil

be disbunsed to either ofthe parties. Itjis for courjtpitt; L

matter pending before it and thereafter, taztgéidccisioia :75 tiisiiurgéitiiiiéiiaiizount V V

as per their entitlement, in witii iaifié; Vi “”

Petition is dispos_e{E–