REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

POOJARI PEDANNA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

H. G. KULKARNI V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION,BELGAUM [REFERRED TO]
THIPPAIAH V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT [REFERRED TO]
K. L. MALLIKARJUNAIAH V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,HASSAN DISTRICT [REFERRED TO]
MALIK L. KAPADIA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
N. KEMPANNA V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
AHUJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENNAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. ALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. K S NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
DEVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ANAND SHARADCHANDRA OKA VS. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
SIDDALINGIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGI HENGSU VS. ROCKY LASRADO [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHADER MEKHRI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
V T KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
LINGEGOWDA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR [REFERRED TO]
O DYAMAPPA VS. APPANNA BHOVIKARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES [REFERRED TO]
P C THANIKAVELU VS. SPL DY COLLECTOR L A MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NINGE GOWDA VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER PANDAVAPURA SUB DIVISION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. GURDIAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE acquisition of land vide preliminary notification, dated 2nd June, 2006 and final notification (declaration), dated 16th august, 2006 under Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the KIAD Act' for short) is being assailed in these three petitions. The land in question measures 1 acre 35 guntas at Survey No. 41 of Kadubisanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, bangalore East Taluk. The acquisition of the said land is for the benefit of the third respondent.

(2.) SRI Navkesh Batra, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 15716/06 has urged the following contentions :

(3.) SRI Mohan Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 15628/06 states that he adopts the submissions made by Sri navkesh Batra. He disputes that the petitioner has signed the sale agreement and that he has surrendered the possession of land in question to the first respondent. He disowns the signatures found on the possession certificate. He further brings to my notice that there is discrepancy between the possession certificate as found at Annexure-R6 to the third respondent's statement of objections and Annexure-R7 as found to the second respondent's statement of objections. Though, both the possession certificates are identical in all other respects, the Revenue Inspector's signature is found only on the latter; the same is not found on the former. Accprding to Sri Mohan kumar, this discrepancy raises the big question mark on the very taking of the possession.

Click here to view full judgment.

POOJARI PEDANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address