Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Siddappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Another

Siddappa vs State of Karnataka and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Gulbarga Decided Mar 22, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1106207

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka Gulbarga High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 100876 of 2013 (GM-RES)
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Siddappa

Advocate Sri. Ashok B. Mulage

Respondent

State of Karnataka and Another

Excerpt

1. learned government advocate takes notice for respondents. 2. writ petitioner claiming to be the owner a lorry bearing reg. no. ka-32/bn-3290, which has come to be seized by the chittapur police and handed over to the food and civil supplies department in violation of the provisions of orders passed under the essential commodities act, 1955, is aggrieved by the condition imposed by the deputy commissioner of gulbarga district, which is condition imposed that in respect of the value of the lorry at rs. 12,00,000/-, bank guarantee for a sum of rs. 6,00,000/- should be issued and an indemnity bond for the balance amount should be furnished etc. 3. heard sri ashok b. mulage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and sri manavendra reddy, learned government advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. sri manavendra reddy, learned government advocate points out that the condition is reasonable and there is no need for interference. 5. sri ashok b. mulage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only source of livelihood of the petitioner is the transportation business work in the lorry and not being in a position to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of rs. 6,00,000/-, instead will furnish surety of immovable property to the satisfaction of the authorities. 6. in the circumstances, the order passed by the deputy commissioner is modified, directing the petitioner is furnish instead of bank guarantee for a sum of rs. 6,00,000/- a security of immovable property of the value of rs. 6,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the authorities and the other conditions remain as it is. 7. writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. Learned Government Advocate takes notice for respondents.

2. Writ petitioner claiming to be the owner a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-32/BN-3290, which has come to be seized by the Chittapur Police and handed over to the Food and Civil Supplies Department in violation of the provisions of orders passed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, is aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Gulbarga District, which is condition imposed that in respect of the value of the lorry at Rs. 12,00,000/-, Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- should be issued and an indemnity bond for the balance amount should be furnished etc.

3. Heard Sri Ashok B. Mulage, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

4. Sri Manavendra Reddy, learned Government Advocate points out that the condition is reasonable and there is no need for interference.

5. Sri Ashok B. Mulage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only source of livelihood of the petitioner is the transportation business work in the lorry and not being in a position to furnish Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-, instead will furnish surety of immovable property to the satisfaction of the authorities.

6. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is modified, directing the petitioner is furnish instead of Bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- a security of immovable property of the value of Rs. 6,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the authorities and the other conditions remain as it is.

7. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial