High Court Karnataka High Court

The Spl Land Acquisition Officer vs Shankar Uma Naik on 2 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The Spl Land Acquisition Officer vs Shankar Uma Naik on 2 March, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And A.S.Pachhapure
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD.  

DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF MARCH zmoe   

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR.IUsTICE I~?;I-:.I°ATIIg S    I
THE HON'BLE MR. IUSTICEA.s;I?AC1%IHAI>UI{E

M.F.A. No;I'23755--I2{'Io}9 (L;AC;) .
Between: "   .,  ~

Project Sea Bird, I\I'aIfa]VBaé'e,> ' "
Karwar.   

The Special Land    2 

(By KB. Ad}Ivyapa!.ry,_   

f) Smt. Sushma xjév./o 'S.:Lv!i'.6Sh'    V'

Chendiye,'i_ ' _
Taiuk: Karwar. .
g) Smt. swati W/o s::a.zg,rshan%_\/retri,
" 'R./Q Sa,ikat1_:_a, Kodibag,  """ 
¥_Ta1u}<.; Karwar, ,  ' V

7. Vaasafir{.:jma:%N§i1<V7}j'"

  Since <;14eceavseda'byahis L.Rs.

~  S1nt.Suioéhaé1a w/o vasant Naik,
4  r Mai0r;--Ry0t,
_  *-R/0_M1_1d.ga, Amaciaili,
 -TaIu'k:Karwar.



b) Sri. Pandurang s/o vasant Naik,
Major, Ryot, R/0 Mudga, Amadalli,
Talukz Karwar.

C) Sri. Surendra s/o vasant Naik,
Major, Ryot, R/o Mudga, Amadaili,
Taluk: Karwar.

d) Surekha gurudas Naik, V 
Major, Ryot, R/o Muclga, AmadaIl_i,«.
Taluk: Karwar.  

e) Smt.Kan1akshi Arun Naik,  ,_ _ _ V ' «.  
Major, Ryot, R/0 Mudga, Ariiadalh,  f
Talukr Karwar. " . v_ '

f) Sushila D/o vasarrt      
Major, Ryot, Rio Txétudga,   
Taluk: Karwar.   " '   ._  

8. Ponkya B:edu_Gouda,--ii.__»4"ii  ' -

R/o Mudga, A'mada.1ii,-.    
Karwar.     .- 

9._ _ The Def Estate 0ffi_oer,.
 Kamataka &'.Goa Circle,
   

-- Respondents

 j _ T_This appear is flied LE/S 54(1) ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1394
 jjjagainst the order dated 30.11.2006 in L.A.C. No. 69/91 on the file of
 "._Addi':i_ona1 Civil Judge (Sr. D11), Karwar.

//



Tjgis appeal coming on for orders this day, N.K._I_'_atil }.,
delivered the following: 1 

JUDGMENT

1. Though this matter is posted for _orde_rs”ii*egardi’ng}_non

compliance of office objections, the ma’tter7i_lislitalienl up

disposal in View of the judgment oflthelikpex Court “;;in’1ilar”mlattersl’

as submitted by the Government Advo’c’ate_.f ll

2. The appellant being aggr’ieve33l byfithell judgment and

award dated llNol.Wl69/9} on the file of

Additional Cipv.i.l.l_.Jud~gl_e’ Diij, Karw’ar;…piiesented this appeal.

3. A Govemrnegnt’ Advocate appearing for appellant at the outset
submitted thatpthe A’pex”Cou1’t in similar matters has confirmed the

award passed by the reference Court.

Therelforei’._the””1’ei*i.e_f”~sought for in the appeal does not survive for

llv?’s3consideratilon andhthe appeal may be dismissed as having become

.1 –inifi’uctuious..p

/’

fill

4. Submission 0% Government Advocate is placed on record. The
appeal filed by the appeilant is dismissed as having-._ ‘beeome

infructuous. Ordered accordingiy.

bvv