Karnataka Court July 1976 Judgments
N.V. Chinne Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant68; 1976(2)KarLJ176
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 13-5-1975 made by the Land Tribunal, Narasimharajapura Taluk, under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, registering Devamma Hegdathi - respondent No. 3 as occupant of 6 acres 24 guntas of land in Survey No. 4 of Karkeswara village, Narasimharajapura Taluk and rejecting the claim of the petitioner for registration of occupancy in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas out of 6 acres 24 guntas in the said Survey Number.2. Respondent No. 3 Devamma Hegdathi made an application under Section 45 of the Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal for registration of occupancy in respect of 6 acres 24 guntas of agricultural land in Survey No. 4 of Karkeswara village. The petitioner Chinne Gowda, alleging that he was a sub-tenant under respondent No. 3 in respect of 2 acres 20 guntas out of 6 acres 24 guntas, made an application to the same Land Tribunal for registering him as occupant in respect of 2 acres 20 gunt...
Tag this Judgment!Patel Munireddy and ors. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore and or ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-29-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant91; ILR1976KAR1467
ORDER1. The lands of the petitioners have been acquired for providing house-sites to the weaker sections of the Community under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 (Karnataka Act 18 of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and the Rules framed there under. The validity of the acquisition proceedings is called into question in all these petitions.2. The common complaint of the petitioners, to put it shortly, is as follows: -The acquisition proceedings in each of these cases were initiated by the local Block Development Officer. Upon the publication of the notifications under Section 3 (1) of the Act, the petitioners filed their objections within the time allowed to them. But the Assistant Commissioner, who received the objections, did not hold the enquiry as required under Rule 6 of the Rules. He did not either send their objections to the Block Development Officer for his comments, or heard him in the presence of the petitioners. The petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Sha Pannalal Pemraj and Co. and ors. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Hassa ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-28-1976
Reported in: ILR1976KAR1361; 1976(2)KarLJ139; [1976]38STC350(Kar)
Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. These appeals are directed against the order in W.P. No. 1514 of 1974 and connected matters made by Venkataramiah, J., dismissing the said writ petitions challenging the assessment orders made under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called the Act. 2. The appellants are carrying on the business of buying and selling cardamoms in Sakleshpur in the State of Karnataka. They are registered as 'dealers' under the Act. Cardamoms being 'declared goods', under section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Central Act, the right of the State Legislatures to levy sales tax on cardamoms is subject to the restrictions and limitations imposed by section 15 of the Central Act. 3. The facts, so far as they are material, are in not dispute and they lie within a narrow compass. Sakleshpur is one of the marketing centres for cardamoms in Karnataka State. The appellants buy cardamoms from registered dealers and also from commission agents operatin...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka Vs. Shivadeva
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-27-1976
Reported in: 1976CriLJ1958
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davangere, brought to the notice of this Court through the District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, the two letters written to him by Shivadeva accused dated 10-10-1975/18-11-1975 Ex. p-1 and 30-11-19715/2-12-1975 Ex. P-2 containing language which according to the learned Magistrate was highly contemptuous of this Court. These letters are alleged to have been written by the accused after the Magistrate aforesaid had dismissed his complaint under Sections 447, 500 and 323, I.P.C. against one Narappa and Rajashekarappa after obtaining the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Davangere Town Police Station to whom the complaint had been referred for enquiry and report under Section 156 (3), Criminal P. C.2. This Court, on perusal of the aforesaid letters written by Shivadeva accused, issued notice to him to show cause. In pursuance of the show cause notice, he appeared in Court and when questioned as to whether the two letters in q...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulsab Rajasab Vs. the Special Deputy Commissioner, District Dharwar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-26-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant4; 1976(2)KarLJ117
ORDER1. What has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition is the order made by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar, in proceedings pertaining to making entries in the record of rights.2. This Court has consistently taken the view that the entries made in the record of rights are not conclusive 1and are subject to the decision in a suit or other appropriate proceedings. This Court does not ordinarily interfere with the entries made in the record of rights. But, it was contended by Sri R. U. Goulay, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act as substituted by Act 27 of 1976 the authorities functioning under the Act are required to refer the issues which are required to be decided by the Tribunal for its adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 133 of the Act as substituted, reads as follows:'133. Suits, Proceedings, etc., involving questions required to be decided by the Tribunal - (1) No...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapati Laxman Shet Vs. Sitabai Kom Ramdas Vernekar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant29; ILR1976KAR1415; 1976(2)KarLJ208
ORDER1. Though the petitioner has invoked the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, on the request of Sri S. G. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, he has been permitted to amend the writ petition by deleting Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, it is clear in this writ petition that the petitioner has invoked only the provisions of Article 227.2. This writ petition has not been registered by the Office on the ground that the Munsiff and the District Judge of Karwar have not been impleaded as respondents, who are necessary parties to the writ petition.3. In the application filed by the respondent under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for eviction of the petitioner before the Munsiff at Karwar, the petitioner raised the contention to the effect that he is not a tenant under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, but that he is an agricultural tenant governed by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961....
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Parsuram Vs. Commissioner and Acquisition Officer, Corporatio ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant83; ILR1976KAR1117
ORDER1. Chunilal Parsuram the petitioner is the owner of property bearing No. 31 (old) and New No. 15, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore City. A portion of the said property was notified for acquisition for a public purpose under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After an enquiry contemplated under Section 5-A, in which the petitioner vainly objected against the acquisition, a declaration as required under Section 6 of the Act was published. It was followed by service of notice to the petitioner under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. In reply to the said notice, he submitted that his entire property should be acquired and the acquisition of a portion of it would leave the rest without any use to him. That objection was raised under Section 49 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, without noticing the said objection, passed an award, the validity of which is called into question in this petition under Art. 226.2. The sole question that arises ...
Tag this Judgment!L. Dhanya Naik Vs. State
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-22-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ654
D.B. Lal, J.1. These three Criminal Appeals having been connected and consolidated arise out of a judgment of the Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, convicting the appellant L.D. Naik, the then Block Development Officer, Hosadurga, under Sections 467/34, 477-A/34 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-and in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months each for the offences under Sections 467/34 and 409/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month under Section 477-A/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Prosecution case was that the appellant L.D. Naik was working as Block Development Officer, Hosadurga, during the years 1968-69 along with K.H. Seshachar under him as the First Division Clerk, and Revana working under him as an Accountant in the same office. Besid...
Tag this Judgment!The General Manager, Bangalore Transport Service, Bangalore Vs. N. Nar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: AIR1977Kant6; ILR1976KAR1449
Honniah, J.1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is from the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in M. C. (M. V. C.) No. 30 of 1972 whereby a sum of Rs. 12,500/- has been awarded as compensation to respondents 1 and 2. The owner of the vehicle has filed this appeal.2. On 7th June, 1971, at about 10-30 A. M. near the L. I. C. Building (opposite to Unity Building) in Bangalore, a young boy named N. Raju aged about 20 years who was riding a bicycle and proceeding from South to North, met his death in consequence of serious injuries to his abdomen on account of collision between the cycle and the bus bearing Registration No. MYF 433 belonging to the appellant driven by its servant respondent-4. P. W. 11 Dr. M. Srinivasan, Lecturer, in Forensic Medicine, Bangalore Medical College, who conducted the postmortem examination observed in the postmortem report that among other injuries, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs were fractured and the liver and spleen were ...
Tag this Judgment!iahwarappa Vs. the District Magistrate and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-20-1976
Reported in: 1977CriLJ306
ORDERV.S. Malimath, J.1. The petitioner has, in this writ petition challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Bijapur, the licensing authority, dated 1-10-1975 Exhibit-A and the subsequent order dated 25-10-1975 Exhibit-B filed along with I, A. No. 1.2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:The petitioner's father held a licence under the Arms Act. 1959, which entitled him to possess a revolver bearing No. 64196. The petitioner's father died on 22nd Nov. 1972, on which date the licence granted to him was in force. After his death, his son the petitioner deposited the revolver with the concerned police authorities on the 20th December, 1972. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application on the 8th October, 1973, to the District Magistrate, Bijapur and prayed that the revolver may be handed over to his uncle the second respondent as the same has been transferred in his favour. The request of the petitioner was turned down by the District Magistrate by his order dated 1-1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »