{"id":82904,"date":"2009-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-15T12:29:10","modified_gmt":"2018-10-15T06:59:10","slug":"roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA AT maagoag A\n\nDATED was we 15* MYMOF way\"  j  \n\nBEFORE   * \n\nTHE HONBLE M:2.JusTIcEkN&joa%:.AM SHAmAsi;s;soQ9Aakk %\n\nWRIT P\u00a7TIT_[ON   (1l\u00ab__,': 'V\u00ab\"*-i<'iAE_)__B_.)\n\nBetween:\n\nRoy Rodrigues     i ~\nRep by his Power (ff _  ~ A\nAttorney HoEc1cr_.7*_  ' . \nRamesh  52;, _,  V\nS\/o Vi\ufb02al Shettjr   \nAged ab-Qut__33   "\n\nR\/a 2694, 13%'  _ \n4*" Cross, HAL II Sfag\ufb01' _  _\nindixanagar, "  * ~~ . fctitioncr\n\n - ._(By    & Associates, Adv.,)\n\n1." The Gtiv\u00e9rsrzz\ufb01ziaent of Kanlataka\nRap by itsj\ufb01ecrctaxy\nDepgartgnent 01' Commerce as\n\n Indu\ufb01trcics, Viihana Soudha\n\nA' Ba;1gak)rc~56G O01.\n\n    taka kndusm.-a1" Area\n\nF Development Boaznd\n" Rep by its Secretary\nNo.14\/3, H Floor\nRP. Buzikiing\nNrupathuaga Road\n\n\n\nBangabxt-560 (30 1.\n\n3. EMS. Cauvery Motors Pvt. Ltd.,\nS.No. 13, Ilth KM\nKanakapura Road\nBaI1ga1ore--560 062\nRep by its Director.\n\n4. M13. Advaith Motors\nNo. 12, Ivfmsiorl Road\nShaina Ran Compound\nBanga1ore--56(} 027  _ *  \nRep by its Director.    _   '.'.-Re:-spondents\n\n(By Sri M. Kcshava Raddy. 'AGA.; %.f;$a:::\u00ab__ \nSri S.R.  \"g's<iv., for 323'& R4)   \n\nThis w:itv.\u00a7~*::ti1:'g::;1:;s'iiged under Articles 226 & 22?' of the\nConstitutioxz of .1nmja,pmyi:;g'~--to quash the gazette noti\ufb01cation\npar\u00a3:--EII of'No.*2059_datcd"25\u00a5~11'-2005 at Am1exuxve--J acqujxing\nthe petitio11\u00e9rfs"1and _in;Sy,'P .0.225 mcasmfing 2 amass '2 guntas\nleft out after \u00e9cquitixzg 31  of land in the 381116 survey\nnurabcgr *situate'(i.._V at V Banandur Village, Bidadi Hobii,\n\n " f?_am'a1."iaga~I'aJ11A.'I'a1uk',"' 'Bangalore District.\n\n " V  Ftgtition having been heard and msezvcd for\noicleis\u00e9oii 2'1 and pronounced the ordars an 1" July\n'.E.'0{)"3_:V M \n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Fe\ufb01\ufb01oner being the land cawncr qua-stions the<\/p>\n
   amillisition noti\ufb01cation dated 25.11.2605 (i.e., Final<\/p>\n
Nb<\/p>\n
-3″\n<\/p>\n
Noti\ufb01cation) produced at Annexure–‘J’ to the <\/p>\n
by which the petitioner’s iand bearing  ‘   <\/p>\n
measuring 2 acres 2 guntas  <\/p>\n
acquiring ’21 guntas of land the\u00ab’seia,e s1;,z’i?e;${“1iu1i:1E\u00a7er “~sV<\/p>\n
situated at Banandur village,
\nTaluk, Bangalore Dismet\ufb02s  eesoondents~
\nauthorities. He also  ailotment of
\nsites made  4 carved out of
\nthe  ii     V<\/p>\n
2.  M’1M*n%e    ;;f:;\u00a7\u00a2a1 that the preliminary<\/p>\n
notification   28 (1) of the kiaznataka<\/p>\n
J V’ Areas L)ev’eiopment Act (hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
“as   for short) was issued on 15.4.3997,<\/p>\n
proposing  ‘2 acres 23 guntas of ianci in Smvey<\/p>\n
 “\u00ab.__Vko.225″ voelonging to the petitixmer along with various<\/p>\n
A  orofjxer Totally about 1884 acres of land was sought<\/p>\n
 ’11’ tofbe acquired under the said noti\ufb01oa\ufb01on. The Final<\/p>\n
” Noti\ufb01ca\ufb01on came to be issued on 4.4. 3998 in respect of 21<\/p>\n
-4-<\/span><\/p>\n
guntas of iand in Survey 1510.225 and aiong  V.<\/p>\n
other properties and the same were handed  K  <\/p>\n
respondent–.Karnataka industrial:    <\/p>\n
Board for development. ‘i’hereafter;*~.t;ie co11;.’;je%1:iseitionA.”is’V  d’<\/p>\n
paid to the petitioner which     respect
\nof 2 1 guntas. Thus, at   _no*dfics\ufb02on was
\nnot issued in respect of    of land
\nin sy.no.225..   in respect
\nof 2 acres 25.11.2005 aiongwith
\ncertain other   thetnotification produced at<\/p>\n
Annexure-tufts   In the meanwhile, the<\/p>\n
_. V \ufb01nal noti\ufb01eatio\ufb01s  ceftain dates are issued in respect of<\/p>\n
  were sought to be acquired in the<\/p>\n
 On 20th of March 2006,<\/p>\n
~pessessioi*t “is taken by respondent No.2-Karnataka<\/p>\n
 V’  Areas Development Board {hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
  ;the Board’ for short) of the remaining portion of 2<\/p>\n
 ‘2 guntas of land in Survey No.225. The Board in<\/p>\n
turn a\ufb02etted the preperty in question in two bits to<\/p>\n
.. 5 ..\n<\/p>\n
respondents 3 and 4 in the z\ufb01onth of March 2008. This<\/p>\n
writ peti\ufb01on is \ufb01led praying for quashing the—-.__f’1nai<\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation.\n<\/p>\n
3. Learned counsel appearing on   <\/p>\n
argued that the petitioner is not-‘issuecl  Iiotiee V<\/p>\n
before issuing the final no\ufb01iiea\ufb01of:;__  <\/p>\n
notification cannot be iss11ed”‘-.al’i;.=:r lspse’ of E75  <\/p>\n
the date of issuing  :i0tj\ufb01caiiorl;””V4ti1at the<\/p>\n
pre\ufb02mi;1e\ufb01’j% “set\u00a7\ufb01\u00a3\u00a7%;.\ufb01a\ufb01~j\u00a7;iate{i””‘i’S.4.1997 is deemed to
\nhave been’  \u00abof passage of time; that no<\/p>\n
1’1otie.g.is iss{ieri:’to..\u20ac:he”pefitioner while taking possession of<\/p>\n
 ‘om? .m1dler secson 28 (6) of the Km) Act; and<\/p>\n
of the land in the State has taken place in<\/p>\n
  the  (i.e., the year of issuing \ufb01nal noti\ufb01cation)<\/p>\n
 hezzoe, the principles of Section 1 LA of the Land<\/p>\n
 .iA:;\u00a3;t1isition Act should be made applicable to the facts of<\/p>\n
  this case also. Lastly, it is contended that the<\/p>\n
\\\/ow<\/p>\n
.. 5 –\n<\/p>\n
compensation is to be paid to the petitioner based on the<\/p>\n
market value as on today.\n<\/p>\n
4. The Writ mtition is opposed by  ~<\/p>\n
appearing on behalf of respondents.  mayo ” ” ”<\/p>\n
statement of objections. The  <\/p>\n
argued in support of the  of  ‘by
\ncontending that the notice waVs…iVssu1e\u20aciL_ to ‘1ih–e..,spe;i\u00a7:itior1er<\/p>\n
before passing the \ufb01nal  ‘as at the time<\/p>\n
of taking   jjrogierty. They further
\nsubmitt\u00a7d’vv–,;\ufb01at  for issuing two or three<\/p>\n
\ufb01rml noti\ufb01_catio1as”‘oasuedA’–oI\u00a7 ‘single preliminary noti\ufb01cation,<\/p>\n
viwhen  sought to be acquired is a Vast;<\/p>\n
 area to be formed is comprising<\/p>\n
‘–w~’\u00bb,ef va1*iousv.lasmis of various dimensions belonging to<\/p>\n
‘ <  jv 'various people.\n<\/p>\n
“E5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
 ” “respondent No.2~Board has made available the records<\/p>\n
\\\/9?\n<\/p>\n
-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
znaintajned by the Land Acquisition Officer and the <\/p>\n
Ibr perusal of the Court. The contention of   ~<\/p>\n
that no notice was issued to him before    n V’<\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation cannot be sustained, inas}ntuchttas;’ the <\/p>\n
was issued to the petitioner   ” ‘<\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation in respect of. the  extent of  23
\nguntas of land.  and ‘K3′
\nproduced by     “aiong with their
\nstatement   the notices are issued
\nto the elem’ that the entire extent of 2<\/p>\n
acres 23  xis  to be acquired aiongwith<\/p>\n
_”   at the out set, the Board has<\/p>\n
  clear that the entire 2 acres 23 guntas<\/p>\n
of’.  However, the objections am not<\/p>\n
 ‘ \ufb01led   f)etitioner. Therefore, it shall have to be held<\/p>\n
  %:;;a’: the petitioner did not object for acquisition of his land<\/p>\n
  on extent ofiz acres 23 guntas.\n<\/p>\n
6. It is no doubt true that the Final Noti\ufb01cation in<\/p>\n
respect of 21 guntas only (along with other lands) was<\/p>\n
\\\/V<\/p>\n
– 9 –\n<\/p>\n
totaliy measuring 219 acres 11 guntas, including the<\/p>\n
property of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Under similar circumstances, this Court in .,<\/p>\n
of B.x.  AND armies -93-  3;.e;2\u00a7L, ”<\/p>\n
smegma; AND mvowmx (Am 1)’, <\/p>\n
has ruled that successive notiI’ieatione__ zii_di\ufb01’eI4e_:1t  ”<\/p>\n
Wili not cause any prejudice to  owners. :.’.=Sii;;oeVVVthe
\nscheme of the KIADB  fof\ufb01ae\ufb01on of
\nindustrial layout is e. comprehei\ufb01si.ve”  the<\/p>\n
acquisitio\ufb01xof aree ‘i::’:fve’1″\u00bb;=gi’ scheme can take place
\nat different   to time depending on the
\ngievelopxzieijtal ac1Eiv’itVie_e__A2?J1d its compietion. in the very<\/p>\n
jusigjent,  jxeid that the land owners will be<\/p>\n
   in accox\ufb01ance with the Land<\/p>\n
V \ufb02.Acquisi’e:’e:1 AC1; xinasmuch as, they are not only entitled to<\/p>\n
 mic, but ease the solatium, additionai market<\/p>\n
 ~~o’_s._2f’;aii1e’,’.; interest on solatium, interest of market value etc.,<\/p>\n
 ._’li””l’.iee.’e factors will compensate the damage, if any,<\/p>\n
  sustained by the land owner. Moreover, time taken by the<\/p>\n
K45?\n<\/p>\n
-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
authorities to acquire the land and in taking <\/p>\n
would enure to the owner’s benefit of  <\/p>\n
usufructus of the land til} he is ”  ‘<\/p>\n
award is passed. Thus, successixie “i’1otiI’i\u00a7’z:*.t:ie;1sL_L:”‘\u00abst*Jf.<\/p>\n
different stages will not cause  preju_dioe: to ” ‘<\/p>\n
owners like petitioner as in ttievgebosvsession
\ntill passing of the award oiVta_  K3’ “P s.\u00a7\u00a5”seti1sEiV”;\ufb01ossession. This
\nCourt in yet snomer   the case of
\nSmtsakammiz   in Writ
\nPetition  h%e;3i*\u00ab\u00a7.81–32\u00ab5\u00a782\/1″996 and connected<\/p>\n
matters, has ”  f.11zz_:t ‘_”_.\u00bbsvs4uccessive fnal noti\ufb01cafjons<\/p>\n
_.based .. single  noti\ufb01cation can be issued.<\/p>\n
Wrxiie’-\u00bbcon\u00a7:i11difiE..’so, this Court in the aforementioned<\/p>\n
 V iudgniem  thus:\n<\/p>\n
V ”  ..  the aforesaid provisrlons it is cieair
\nV  *  Vt\ufb01ere shalt be an industriat area and the
\n  Board shall function for promotion and
\n assistance so the rapid and orderly
\nestablishment, growth and deveiopment of
\nirtdustries in the izzdusttial areas. It is also<\/p>\n
\\\\\/W<\/p>\n
-13..\n<\/p>\n
relevant to note that Section 27 of the
\nprovides that Chapter wt of the Act shall I    AL
\nonly tosuch are-asfmm such dareets   V
\nnoti\ufb01ed by the State Gover1i:feer;-t   A  AA<\/p>\n
secz\ufb01on (3) of Section 1 Qf_T  <\/p>\n
scheme of the Act, it   <\/p>\n
situated within the  \ufb02<)r~..ar\u00a2\u00a3-is:\n<\/p>\n
declared to be an    azone\nbe acquired: _ The  ..\nindustrmlg  g \n\n \"  ,,    and\n<\/pre>\n
managehze”rzt:V’1\u00ab:;gf   is a Eong
\nc\u20acr\u00a3;:,\u00a2,vr;  No time limit
\n also material to see
\nthat xeizere  of lands are proposed<\/p>\n
  a.aqussi:ianez;2u1er the nottficattian issued
\ne ~.   (1; ofsection 28 ofthe Act, it
\n  possible for the czuthorities to<\/p>\n
”   acquisition at a s’mgle stroke in<\/p>\n
Sub-see.(2) and sub~\u00absec.(3) of the Act<\/p>\n
 ”  mandates the notice to the owneror the
\n and to at! such persons known or<\/p>\n
believed to be mterested therein and to provide
\nthem an opportunity of being heard in respect
\noftheirobjeetionswtdtamakeordersin<\/p>\n
\\\/”‘<\/p>\n
-13..\n<\/p>\n
Under such circumstances, the Land Acqtiisitiefl’<\/p>\n
may choose to hear the persons who  it_\u00a3”1ei’1*: _  <\/p>\n
statement of objections at the  <\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cation in iespect of those  “the f.V”:2’*?.:-1;.’   e’<\/p>\n
\u00abfhereafter, he may choose    in
\nrespect of other     could
\nbe served and heard  to hear large
\nnumber of     objections, the
\nState   period of time and it
\nmay    furders in individual cases.<\/p>\n
‘\u00a7’herefore,&  ewoizlhd’  necessary for the State<\/p>\n
_.. V.G0ver;.\u00a7\u00a7i:iieI1t to  d\u00e9i\ufb01emnt orders followed by di\ufb01erent<\/p>\n
 subsequent declarations would 1101: in<\/p>\n
angsway eaii’se Vjpfejudice to the owners, the same cannot<\/p>\n
 % [be mid e:o:.pe impermissible.<\/p>\n
  For the very reason, it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
 notification dated 15.4.1997 based on which<\/p>\n
the \ufb01nai noti\ufb01cation was not passed for about 7 to 8<\/p>\n
-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
years cannot be heid to have been Lapsed-\u00ab <\/p>\n
aforementioned, the Board was in continuo1;s”_’p;fo:e\u00a7ess of  ” <\/p>\n
formation of indusniai iayout,   it  <\/p>\n
acquired more than about _r1_884     ‘V<\/p>\n
formation of Bidadi industrial    seneme is
\na comprehensive and   came
\nto be executed  completely
\nby issuing    the work<\/p>\n
 ..\n<\/p>\n
9. The that the notice was issued<\/p>\n
under SeotioVn””i?.%8′{f>)VVof  Act to the petitioner. The<\/p>\n
‘eepy  vnotiee’is——moduced by the petitioner himself<\/p>\n
ate1’__An:riex?g1::e-5K?o::ajong with the Writ petition. *1’hus, it<\/p>\n
  cannotbe Veeid\ufb02flat no notice was issued to the peti\ufb01oner<\/p>\n
:jv*}._’H’\u00a3.d\u20acI’ Seetion 28(6) ef the Kim.) Act. Annexure–“K\u00ab6′<\/p>\n
  is the document which shows that the<\/p>\n
  uovemment has taken possession of the property<\/p>\n
  has handed over the same to the Board. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
Vw<\/p>\n
H15-\n<\/p>\n
Merety because the \ufb01nal noti\ufb01cation is <\/p>\n
and possession is taken thereafter, the   <\/p>\n
take the bene\ufb01t of the same.\n<\/p>\n
finai no\ufb01\ufb01cation is issued Later, _ ipetitiexjer *  <\/p>\n
bene\ufb01ciary, inasmuch as, he  in’-;v;>sS;esSion of<\/p>\n
the property and mad:eV’ “nieli\ufb01iiettie of the<\/p>\n
property all the date of   <\/p>\n
I 1. ‘  ‘ef  he of the Land
\nAcquisition\u00bbAett5ve2ii”i;;3.et*\u00bb!ieaii1ede..e.;ip\ufb01eable to the facts of
\nthis case”,  is not passed belatedly<\/p>\n
in this  Section 1 LA of the<\/p>\n
 Aetezemd be appiimble only if the award<\/p>\n
  years from the date of line! noti\ufb01cation.<\/p>\n
‘1’heI’efere,_A  principle cannot be applied to the<\/p>\n
 ~ .. ._ facts of  mse.\n<\/p>\n
it . “12. one of the most important faster in the matter<\/p>\n
K  that the petitioner has made representatien as per<\/p>\n
  ,4:.”AI1nexuIe–‘H’ to the Writ petition on 23.12.1999 praying<\/p>\n
Q\/A<\/p>\n
-13,<\/p>\n
year 1999 to the entire extent of 2 acres <\/p>\n
inciudirlg the petition property, he cannot  to   t <\/p>\n
file the writ petition questioning:-..   <\/p>\n
noti\ufb01cations, that too, after lapse 0Vf*.\u00a3;i’f)01It :<\/p>\n
from the date of finai netifica\ufb01on:  the
\nsaid representation vide  23.12.1999
\nclearly reveels   of things.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, he    petition at the
\neariiest.  .’.   is liable to be
\ndismissect2Q11._  and lashes also, apart<\/p>\n
firm the fact””t1_3atVt.tie  not mailatainable in View of<\/p>\n
his repr\u00e9merptation ” vidVe___A.m1exure-‘H’. Looking from any<\/p>\n
does not find any mound to quash the<\/p>\n
     noti\ufb01cation.\n<\/p>\n
Aoczoiiiafnhyg\u00e9tlvv, m” petm’ ‘on faiks and the same is<\/p>\n
Wi
\nIudg<\/p>\n
*blc\/hen<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009 Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA AT maagoag A DATED was we 15* MYMOF way” j BEFORE * THE HONBLE M:2.JusTIcEkN&joa%:.AM SHAmAsi;s;soQ9Aakk % WRIT P\u00a7TIT_[ON (1l\u00ab__,’: ‘V\u00ab”*-i<'iAE_)__B_.) Between: Roy Rodrigues i ~ Rep by his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82904","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRoy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-15T06:59:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T06:59:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1730,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-15T06:59:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-15T06:59:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T06:59:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009"},"wordCount":1730,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009","name":"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-15T06:59:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/roy-rodrigues-represented-by-his-vs-the-government-of-karnataka-on-1-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Roy Rodrigues Represented By His vs The Government Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82904","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82904\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}