Karnataka Court March 1972 Judgments
Laxminarayana, Mining Co. and anr. Vs. Taluk Development Board and anr ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant299; AIR1972Mys299
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioners in these two cases are holders of mineral concessions granted by the State Government authorising them to conduct mining operations within Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1934 of 1967 is engaged in winning iron ore and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2131 of 1967 is winning both iron ore and manganese ore. By a notification issued under Sections 143 and 144 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act. 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act), the Taluk Development Board of Sandur having jurisdiction over the mining areas in which the petitioners are interested, levied licence fee on the mining of manganese ore, iron ore. red-oxide, barytes etc. Under Entry 62 of Schedule attached to the notification, persons engaged in mining of manganese and iron ore with the help of machinery had to pay Rs. 500/-per area and under Entry 63 persons engaged in mining of manganese and iron ore without the help ...
Tag this Judgment!Thimmaiah Vs. the University of Mysore and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant272; AIR1972Mys272
Narayana Pai, C.J.1. The petitioner, who is a Second Division Clerk in the University of Mysore, complains that he had been unlawfully denied promotion to the position of First Division Clerk, which, according to him. should have been extended to him in normal course in the month of April 1966.2. According to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the University, there were only four persons eligible for promotion at that time. -- three by having passed the required departmental test and one by having completed 45 years of age. These four persons were seniors to the petitioner.3. There were three vacancies. If these three vacancies were filled by promotion of the persons mentioned above, lawfully and without contravening any of the rules of the University, the petitioner could have no grievance. Mr. Rama Jois states that the petitioner is in a position to demonstrate that at least two promotions are illegal -- those of respondent 3 K. S. Narayana Rao and of respondent 4 L. Aswathanar...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Vasudev Paradeshi Vs. N.R. Mattikoppa and Co. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant274; AIR1972Mys274; (1972)1MysLJ674
H.B. Datar, J.1. Plaintiffs instituted L. C. Suit No. 20/1966 in the Court of the Munsiff at Hubli. That suit was heard, and by the judgment dated 30-9-1966 a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. The draft decree appears to have been circulated and the learned Advocates for the parties signed the draft decree on 31-10-1966. On that very day, an application for copy was filed on behalf of the defendant asking for the certified copy of judgment and decree. The learned Judge signed the original Decree on 2-11-1966. The certified copy was delivered to the appellant-defendant on 18-11-1966 and the appeal was filed on that very day. The appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No. 192/1966 on the file of the Civil Judge. Hubli.2. When the appeal came up for hearing several years later, the learned appellate Judge took the view that the appeal was barred bv limitation, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. That is how the defendant has preferred the second appeal.3. The short question ...
Tag this Judgment!Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore Vs. P. Anantha ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant313; AIR1972Mys313; (1972)2MysLJ352
Venkataswami, J. 1. The above three appeals arise under the Land Acquisition Act. hereinafter called the Act. They have been preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Port, Mangalore, against a common award made by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore. South Kanara, in Original Petitions Nos. 501, 1220 and 1240 of 1965. Since the claimant is common in all these appeals, and the lands are situated in one locality, these appeals are also disposed of by a common judgment. Since there are cross-objections preferred by the respondent in all these appeals, they are also disposed of by this judgment.2. The lands under acquisition in these cases, as can be seen from the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, are situate at about six miles from Mangalore Town. They are in the interior, about half a mile from the main road, and within a valley in between a stretch of hills and are interspersed with huge rocks. Except for a private road formed specifically ...
Tag this Judgment!Shetkari Sahakari Sakkar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-27-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant325; AIR1972Mys325
Venkataramiah, J. 1. The petitioner in the above petition is a co-operative Society having its registered office at Sangli in the State of Maharashtra. It owns a sugar factory which is also situated in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent 3 is a company having its registered office at Sangli and it has a sugar factory at Ugar-Khurd in the District of Belgaum. Mysore State.2. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the constitutional validity of the Mysore Sugarcane (Regulation of Distribution (Ugar Khurd) Order 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order). The impugned order was promulgated by the Government of Mysore, on October 14, 1971, in exercise of its powers under Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. 1966 read with G. S. R. 1127 dated the 16th July 1966 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Food. Agriculture, Community Development and Cooperation (Department of Food). By the impugned Order, the Government of Mysore determined the qu...
Tag this Judgment!Beerappa Vs. Yeshwantrao and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-24-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant338; AIR1972Mys338; (1972)2MysLJ123
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. This is a Revision Petition under Section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 filed against the order dated 19-9-1969 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga. in File No. 241/Apl./60-61. 2. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 gave a joint petition to the Assistant Commissioner. Gulbarga, requesting to accord permission for the alienation of a land bearing Survey No. 448 in Baswantvadi Kadaganchi village. Taluka Aland. The first respondent claimed to be its owner and the petitioner intended to buy the same from the first respondent. Before the said petition was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner, two persons by name Rama Rao Hanumantrao filed an objection petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga requesting him not to grant permission for alienation. On 23-9-1959, respondents 2 and 3 herein, namely. Geethabai and Gangabai filed another objection petition before the Assistant Commissioner stating that they...
Tag this Judgment!Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mangalore Vs. Smt. Ovamma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant175; AIR1973Mys175
Venkataswami, J.1. The above appeals are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer Port, Mangalore, and are directed against a common award made by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge at Mangalore, South Kanara. In O. P. No. 806/67. L. A. C. Nos. 27 28 29 and 30 of 1967. Since the claimant is common in all these cases, these appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The lands comprised in these cases are dry garden, wet II and Wet III lands. In regard to the said lands, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 3,000/-. Rs. 2,400/- to Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- per acre respectively. On a reference to the Court at the instance of the claimant, the Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 13,200/-, Rs. 8,800/- to 13,200/- and Rs. 6,600/- per acre respectively, in regard to the above said lands. Aggrieved by this award, the Land Acquisition Officer has approached this Court in the present appeals.3. M. F. A. No. 340/69 arise...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Bhaktha Vs. Ramanna Shetty
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-23-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant327; AIR1972Mys327
V.S. Malimath, J. 1. This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Udapi in Appeal Suit No. 19 of 1965 confirming the decree passed by the Munsiff, Karkal in O. S. 461 of 1965.2. The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit on the 4th August 1962 for a declaration that he is the challenging tenant of the A schedule property, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and for a mandatory injunction to remove certain encroachments made by the defendant on the A schedule property. The defendant resisted the suit inter alia contending that the plaintiff is not the tenant of the suit land and that he is also not in possession of the same.3. The learned Munsiff. after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit. That decree was affirmed by the learned Civil Judge in appeal. Hence this second appeal by the defendant.4. Sri B. P. Holla, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadra Bai Vs. State of Mysore
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-15-1972
Reported in: AIR1973Kant13; AIR1973Mys13; (1973)1MysLJ175
1. On account of construction of a tank at Hosalli village, Koppal taluk, certain land belonging to the appellant-claimant became submerged under water in the year 1959-60. Later on preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published proposing to acquire the said land in the Mysore Gazette dated 8-11-11962. On the basis of the said notification, the land was acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing Rs. 35,374/- as the compensation payable in respect of the said land. The said amount was paid to the claimant on 26-11-1963. While doing so, he did not award interest for the period prior to 26-11-1963, on the ground that the possession had not been taken at all pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings. The appellant objected to the said award and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of the interest payable to her. She however had no o...
Tag this Judgment!Hayalappa and ors. Vs. Hyalappa and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-10-1972
Reported in: AIR1972Kant266; AIR1972Mys266; (1972)1MysLJ656
B. Venkataswami, J. 1. This is a second appeal by the defendants in Original Suit No. 39/1 of 1964, on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Shorapur, and is directed against the judgment and decree made by the Additional Civil Judge at Gulbarga, in Regular Appeal Ho. 61 of 1966. The Munsiff has dismissed the suit and the lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for.2. The suit was filed for permanent injunction simpliciter on the basis of possessory title of the plaintiffs in regard to Survey Nos. 73. 74 and 76 of Vibhutihalli Village. Shahapur Taluk.3. It is unnecessary to refer to the pleadings in detail, in the view I propose to take of the matter.4. In the course of this appeal, a preliminary objection has been taken, on behalf of the appellants defendants, by Sri A. M. Farooq, learned Counsel. The objection is set out in one of the grounds taken in this appeal and reads thus:--'The defendants 2 and 4 who were respondents 2 and 4 in the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »