Bangalorouth Tq v. Sri K.H.Jagadish, GA, for R2)
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jun 1998
- Bench
- A SADASHIVA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ss. 17(1), 19(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to re—determine and to pass such orders as it deems just arid appropriate in the circumstances of the case in relation to payment of compensation to the person entitled to…
Judgment
Sri Marappa, aged about 85 yrs., s/o Late Munivenkatappa, r/o Yelachanahalli, Sarakki Post, Bangalorouth Tq., .. Petitioner (By Sri Charidrasekhara Reddy, Adv.,) AND:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Developnent Authority, Bangalore.
The Muzarai. Assistant, Corporation Area, Podium Block, Visweshwaraiah Centre, Dr.Arnbedkar Veedhi, Bangalore—1. (By Sri N.K.Patil, Ady., for Ri; Sri K.H.Jagadish, GA, for R2) .. Respondents This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to direct R—2 to produce the document material relating to payment of compensation to the petitioner in respect of 36 guntas of land in Sy.No,45 of Govinayakanahalli before R—1 and etc., +his Writ Petition coming on for prly. hearing is day, the Court made the following :— 2 ORDER It is admitted that notifications under sections 17(1) and 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 have been issued in the name of the petitioner. It is also admitted that the petitioner did not seek a reference u/s 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation. However1 he filed an application u/s 28A of the Land Acquisition Act1 1894 for redetermination of the compensation on the basis of the award made by the Civil Court in respect of other lands notified under the same notification,
2. It appears the Land Acquisition Officer directed the petitioner to produce certain documents to redetermine the compensation. There was no need for the petitioner to produce any document as he based his claim on the judgement rendered by the Civil Court in reference in respect of other lands acquired under the same notification, If the Land Acquisition Officer has any doubt as to the right of the petitioner to receive compensatien, he may make a reference to the Civil Court u/s 30 of the Act\ re-determining the compensation u/s 28 3 He cannot postpone redetermination on the ground that the\ has failed to produce certain docurncnts which are not relevant for the purpose of re—determination.
This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to re—determine and to pass such orders as it deems just arid appropriate in the circumstances of the case in relation to payment of compensation to the person entitled to receive.
In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs, S. Sri.1Z.H.Jagadish, the learned HCGA, is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks Sd! JUDGE 0 N ckl/aç8
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 — ss. 17(1), 19(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 30 Jun 1998. The bench was A SADASHIVA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.