Karnataka Court September 1976 Judgments

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Devangere and ors. Vs. Kotraiahf ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant33; 1976(2)KarLJ318

Venkatachallaa, J.1. M. F. As. Nos. 250 to 264 of 1975 are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, B. R. ProLlect, Davangere, Chitradurga District, and are directed against the common Award and separate Decrees in L. A. C. Nos. 194 ' 171, 72, 173, 174, 177, lal, 182, 189, 19L 193, 196, 197, 198 of I rt 3 and 127 of 1974 respectively on the file of the Court of the Civil judge at Chitradurga, enhancing the compensation respecting several extents of agricultural 1inds classified as dry, wet and bagayat situate in Devarabelakere village, Harihar Taluk, Chitraduraga District, acquired for a public purpose, namely, the 'Devarabelakere Pick-up project pursuant tu the preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Gazet. te dated 15-7-1971.The connected appeals are by the several claimants 'seeking further enhancement.2. 'Me claim for compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer was Rupees MOM/- Per acre for the dry lands: and Rs. 80,000k per acr...

Hanumantappa Kallappa Gudeppanavar Vs. Veerappa Rudrappa UppIn and anr ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant69; ILR1976KAR1765; 1976(2)KarLJ281

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a site situated in a gaonthana and for damages of Rs. 200/- for the removal of mud from that site. The defendants contested the suit. The trial court dismissed it. One of the grounds on which the suit came to be dismissed by the trial court was that it was, barred under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The plaintiff filed an appeal against the decree of the trial court before the Civil Judge, Hubli in R. A. No. 13 of 1971. The Civil Judge also was of the opinion that the suit was barred under Section 61 of the Act and dismissed the appeal without recording his findings on the other issues which arose for consideration in the appeal. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff.2. It is not disputed that the suit was for possession of a site and for damages. The Government is not a party to the suit. It is between private parties. The suit is instituted for establishing a pr...

W.G. Patil Vs. the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. The General Manager of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, which I shall call as 'the Corporation', invited applications for the post of Deputy Controller of Stores/Purchases, Class 1, Senior, by Advertisement No. 9 of 1974, dated 18-10-1974. The qualifications and experience prescribed thereunder were as follows:' A degree of a University established by law in India or equivalent qualification with an experience of not less than 7 years in a responsible capacity in large public or private undertaking in handling automobiles stores involving thorough knowledge of automobile stores, stores procedure, management of stores and related matters, experience of the work at a supervisory level entailing decision-making and not merely handling automobile parts through indenting for usage etc.'The petitioner was one amongst those who applied in response to the said advertisement. His application was finally scrutinised and rejected by the Karnataka State Transport Corporation Boa...

K.S. Rangaiah Setty Vs. L.S. Vasudevamurthy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant50; 1976(2)KarLJ271

ORDER1. L. S. Vasudevamurthy filed an application under Section 21 (1) provisos (a) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for eviction of K. S. Rangaiah Setty from the schedule premises in H. R C. 441/65 on the file of the First Munsiff, Bangalore. The contention of the landlord was that the rent had fallen due from tenant which was in arrears and that the schedule premises were bona fide and reasonably required for his use and occupation. The landlord gave a notice to quit, Ext. P-2, dated 1-10-1964 which inter alia stated:'I terminate the tenancy and call upon you to vacate the said premises No. 1935 Sampige Road, Malleswaram, by 7-11-1964 failing which my client will be forced to take suitable legal steps for evicting you.'It was undisputed between the parties that the tenancy commenced from the 7th of March of each month.2. The tenant contested that so much rent was not due, that the notice to quit was invalid, that the landlord never required the premises for his bona fide an...

Kamalamma Muckanappa Vs. G.S. Panduranga Rao

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant70; ILR1976KAR1799; 1976(2)KarLJ269

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby he has rejected an application of the petitioner-landlord under Section 29(4) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, in as much as he directed that there was a dispute of the respondent being a tenant and unless that dispute was resolved, no jurisdiction could be exercised under Section 29 (4). The question arises in this manner. The petitioner-landlord filed an eviction petition under See. 21 (1), Provisos (a) and (h) seeking the relief of delivery of possession against the respondent-tenant. It was stated that there was no dispute as to the rent payable, which was at a monthly rate of Rs. 275/-. Upto 26-2-1973 when the petition was filed, a sum of Rs. 2750/- was due and payable. The respondent-tenant filed his counter statement and pleaded that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises and that he is not even his tenant. It was further pleaded that so much amount of rent ...

P. Kannaswamy Vs. B.L. Shankaranarayana Shetty

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant72; ILR1976KAR1792; 1976(2)KarLJ266

ORDER1. B. L. Shankaranarayana Setty applied under Section 21(1), Proviso (h) Of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, for eviction of P. Kannaswamy in H. R. C. 700/67 from shop premises bearing No. 110 in Raja Market, Avenue Road, Bangalore City. The contention of the landlord was that he needed the shop for his own reasonable and bona fide occupation and for that he determined the tenancy by serving a notice to quit Upon the tenant. According to the respondent-landlord, the lease was for a period from 1-12-1962 to 31-3-1963, i.e., for four months. Thereafter, the petitioner-tenant assumed the status of a statutory tenant. Subsequently, an argument was founded that the notice to quit was not necessary for a statutory tenant. There was also a plea initially that the tenant had fallen due in arrears of rent although that plea was subsequently given up. The learned First Munsiff, Bangalore allowed the petition. Thereafter, the tenant came in appeal before the First Additional District Judge, w...

Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. A. Thakored ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant42; ILR1977KAR137; 1976(2)KarLJ285

ORDER1. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 22-6-1976 passed in L. A. C, 349 of 1975 on the file of the Additional Civil judge, Bangalore District, Bangalore, on an application filed by the respondents under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act I of 1894) as amended by the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Extension and Amendment) Act, Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1961. An extent of 2 acres 37 guntas of land situated at Binnamangala Manavarthakaval village and belonging to the respondents was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act under a notification issued on 27-8-1964. Respondents were served with the notice under sub-section (2) of, Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act on 2-81970 informing them that an award had been passed in respect of the land that bad been acquired. The case of the respondents before the Court below was that they had filed an application under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act requesting...

Bharatiya Samskrithi Vidhyapith, Bangalore Vs. G. Parthasarathy

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant113; ILR1977KAR275; 1977(1)KarLJ87

ORDER1. The petitioner in the civil revision petition under S. 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, is the respondent-tenant in H. R. C. No. 679 of 1975 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore City and challenges the order made by the Court-below an 19-1-1976 dismissing 1. A. XI in which petitioner sought to have the handwriting in Ex. R-27 sent to the Handwriting Expert attached to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore, for the purpose of comparing disputed writing in the said Ex. R-27 with the exemplar writings of witness, R. W. 3, examined in the case.2. The landlord, respondent herein, sought the eviction of petitioner on several grounds. In the course of his evidence petitioner sought to displace the alleged bona fides of the requirement of the landlord by alleging that the landlord had through the mediation of R. Gopalaswamy negotiated a sale of the property concerned in the proceedings to the petitioner, and that the said Gopalaswamy, allegedly in exerci...

Chikkaveerappa Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1977CriLJ82

ORDERD.B. Lal, J.1. This criminal revision is directed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, merely after considering the 'B' report submitted by the police. The facts of the case being un controverted, are that a private complaint was instituted before the Magistrate by one Chikkaveerappa purporting to be for an offence under the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955. Instead of taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 200, the learned Magistrate asked for investigation by the police under Section 156(3), Criminal Procedure Code which he could do in view of the decision of this Court in Davud Bhai Hasan Ali v. Abhas Bhai (1971) 2 Mys LJ 526 : 1972 Cri LJ 970 and in Chemma v, Laxmichand (1970) 2 Mys LJ (S.N.) No. 226. The police in this case submitted a 'B' Report and the learned Magistrate considering that report has chosen to dismiss the complaint which he could not obviously ...

K. Raghavendra Nayak and ors. Vs. the Judicial Magistrate, First Class ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1977Kant53; ILR1977KAR43; 1976(2)KarLJ258

Tewatia, J.1. 14 Trustees, all of them hereditary, constituted the Board of Trustees of Sri Venkataramana temple,. Karkala - admittedly a denominational temple. They are all parties to the present petition. Five of them as petitioners and remaining nine as respondents being respondents 4 to 12. By some kind of convention, which the petitioner trustees claim to be the schem6, while the respondent trustees name it a mere working arrangement, all the said trustees used to elect 3 trustees from amongst themselves as managing trustees for being in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the trust for a period of 3 years.2. Petitioners 1 to 3 were so elected on 26-9-1969 for a period of 3 years which expired on 30th June, 1972. It appears that thereafter the trustees were deadlocked and were unable to elect a fresh set of managing trustees and the existing set tried to perpetuate its hold for another term of three years by some kind of mandate of the general body of the denomination.3. Some of t...