High Court Karnataka High Court

V Nyathappa vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
V Nyathappa vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 20 March, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
 V' " --. . }~EQSasha11i,--. 'Vfiayanagar
 «T%P:%a%1sahi€%40~

V "  310.4713, 25% Cress
V' " Bangaiore.

'T 4. (3.1%. Ganesh Naicin

m THE HIEH counr or-' KARNATAKA  
mmsz THIS THE 20"?" jz>A'm_F     A u
kjesroée  '    %    

% THE HONBLE ~s:2.Jus1IcE%%F;§.a: c3:-agar'; VS?V4:§:§%TA'Vf§i$%rf3UBAR A

wan  (LA;R§_§)
nmwnmn:         

1. V.     "  
we 1..m':€"'fe::ks:tzip«Pa %   %   %
Ag&c}:abC%1itw'4»S  A  '

O;c<:._: I3riVaté;;S§2I1!i¢c:$' ' 
R] a f'1atf§Eo.23,'  Street
U_1so_o2', :B;éu1ga1cm'-"Q8;----._ ' ~

2. S}:at;gC.*K.  »-- V "  _
_W/0 §€am'ac};1;3nc£.ra'§i?1urthy --
4;: Ag-::d ahciizt 40 years
  R10 §§e.13,'S1:?3ba1ah Buikiixzg
V' iI""Main.Road, 4935 Cmsfi

Q Veflkatappa
Aggrzafl abacmt 37 years

"gfith Biock, Jayanagar

Sfo iate KG. Narayana Naidu



Aged about 36 years

R/0 No.862, 11*' B Cross
1} Phase, J33'. Nagar
Banga1ore~'?8.

N. Guruprasad   
S/o late N. Narayana Rao '

Aged about 56 years

Rfo No.13, 3691 (2 Cross  _

1 15* 'A' Main. Road '

4*?' 'T' Block, Jayanagar

Bangalorc- 1 1. h ' .'Pc_§iti;§i1crs

(By Sri am. <311andras;i:¥$i;a.r;. _m:v:..,j --

AND:  _  '

1.

J12

. V  S/ty'Gu'ttg3}1appa
' .  --. Si:1;:c:%¢;i£:<:'m_sed by his LRs.,

Special§.:andf hgquiéiifien  

II F1<3i', vj..v, €'.3ei:1t:vé'~.f.-- _ V.
[)r.__ j_'§mb¢dk.=:é.._3j Vcsgihg  «.

Ba'ngaio1?té'eU1."f:A§   '-
we *;~anasaaar%%A  "

Bangaliore  
ECG. Read; }3a1__1ga1or<:;'

% *   }%§ruk%' makka

_'Wf.Q}Muniyappa

 z "Ageé abtxut 58 years

' * ._(z:;) wakatesla

S] 0 Muniyappa
Aged about 38 yams

(C) Manjunatha



Consequently, this Court quashed the award directiiizg

the authorities to deposit the compensation  ~ V.

and ftuther directing to the first  '  K  

dispute regarding the apporftioIfaneIitT -1 'A of '-- 

 

oompensation. First respondent is also  to 'V

deposit the amount in the the
matter was referred to 30
of the Land Acquisition. 1tLt1e”‘-ea:Zt1jV»v>-giroceedings,
the pefitionereiv V’ impleading
themseives to application filed by
the petifa?;f3ne:t§eA’V”j§2T.*;t!s_ j 19.10.2006 on the

gonna that has executed the sale

__deed ” Ntmfi}?appa The order dated

‘°~.19′.A. fétague and cryptic. Within 2-3 lines, the

Citrflfield that the sale deeds executed in

favoueof tt;e”;oetitioners are bogus and are executed by

V’ ‘f”.1etitio1:1&s jjerson. The Civil Court should not have dealt

_ -xizoitafxi matter casualiy and ought to have dealt with

W

– -7-

The impugled order dated 19. _

14.1 1.2606 are quashed. ‘1’heV >AAappfic»:£iiau:if the» “=
patitioners for impleading
before the 11 Additional City (;3 iVil__.
hereby ailowed. The Civil the
parties and pass flesh with law,

with regard to ap_p’o1jt;ioI:u:E1*e11f

Writ afgmcrdmgly.

Sd/-

Iudge