Adv.,) AND: 1, The Asst. ColTsnissioner and Land Acquasition Officer, Bell ary v. BAILAMMA @ DODDA BAILAMt4 A & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 30 Jun 1998
- Bench
- A SADASHIVA
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act ss. 4, 6
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The Deputy Commissioner, Bia y Blld yDis 5, The State of Karrataa by its S creta ‘ to Govt., Rave ue Dept., M.S.Builaing, Bangalore—l. .. Respondents (By Sri K,H,Jagadish, GA, fox P1, 4 and 5) and 2 7 of tc Corttut This WrIt Petition…
Judgment
(By Sri C.H.Ramachandra Reddy, Adv.,) AND: 1, The Asst. ColTsnissioner and Land Acquasition Officer, Bell ary.
The Karnataka Housing Board, rep by it Conriiss oner, Cauver; Bhavan, Bar, qalore, i, P e Executive rngireer, Karnataka Housing Board, Sub—Div sior, Bellar
The Deputy Commissioner, Bia y Blld yDis 5, The State of Karrataa by its S creta ‘ to Govt., Rave ue Dept., M.S.Builaing, Bangalore—l. .. Respondents (By Sri K,H,Jagadish, GA, fox P1, 4 and 5) and 2 7 of tc Corttut This WrIt Petition filed unde Articles 226 r of India, pr yirg to qudsn the prelimthnary notification dt. 2,4,78 vide Annex.E and Notificatior dt, 20. 1,79 ide Annex,E1 2 in so far as the petitioners land concerned i.e. land in T,S.No,690 A1/2 measurinq 60 x 84 feet is inciuded in the preliminary notification and the same is not in accoxdance with the provisions of Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and this day, This Writ Petition coming on for prly. hearing the Court made the following : ORDER ILR 1998 Kar In view of the decision of this Court in POORNAPRMNA HOUSE BUILDiNG CO,OPERflIVE SOCIETY Vs. BAILAMMA @ DODDA BAILAMt4A & ORS., 1441, the petitioner having been the subsequent purchaser of the land in question has no right to maintain this petition, for quashing the acquisition proceedings. The petition, therefoie, fails and accordingly rejected. However to the petitIoner to seek for allotment of a site from the second respondent who in such case may consider the case of the peCtioner sympathetically for allotent of a site in such a manner so tnat the house stated to be constructed by the petitioner would form a part and parcel of sud site for such consiaeration as may be determined by the Board. liberty is resrved Sd/ TT:nn J Ls.LJ’ ckl/1798
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act — ss. 4, 6.
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.