Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2063; 1997(3)KarLJ673
G.C. Bharuka, J.1. In this appeal filed under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act'), the Land Acquisition Officer has questioned the market value as determined by the District Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar in RA No. 164/89.2. It appears that, under preliminary notification dated 9.5.1974 issued under Section 4 of the Act, lands in question were acquired for construction of Police Parade Ground, Assault Course, Police Play ground, Police Headquarters and wireless station etc., The learned District Judge on consideration of the materials placed before him, enhanced the market rate from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 1,400/- per gunta by allowing the contention of the land owner and rejecting the -appeal filed by the State for reduction of the market value. When the matter was taken up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, a controversy arose as to whether while determining the potential value of the land in question, deduction by way of development charges should b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant281; 1998(1)KarLJ607
ORDER1. This writ petition under Article 226, has been preferred from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar, dated 23-3-1992. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order as mentioned earlier and the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 2. An application was made under Section 5(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1979, namely 'Act 2 of 1979'. The petitioner had alleged that land was granted to him in June, 1949 and Saguvali Chit was issued on 4-8-1949. Alienation was made on 26-5-1962 and that the transaction was invalid, because it was against non-alienation clause. Petitioner claim himself to be Scheduled Caste and the land was a free grant. The petitioner challenged the order of the Original Authority rejecting his application taking the view that the alienation had been made after 10 years from the date of grant. When the matter came up in appeal, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal taking ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1998)ACC618; 1998ACJ1381; ILR1997KAR3040
ORDERM.F. Saldanha, J.1. I have heard the appellant learned advocate as also the respondents' learned advocate. The incident had taken place in the year 1985 and the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,000/-. The respondent who is an agriculturist is supposed to have been waiting at the bus stop along with another person when a truck approached that place and the cleaner of the truck shouted out to the waiting persons that anyone who desires to be taken in the truck should get in. According to the respondents who are the original claimants, they had visited Hassan and had made certain purchases and they were on their way to their village, and when the truck stopped they boarded the truck along with the material that they had purchased which in this case happens to be jaggery and coconuts. While proceeding, the truck was driven in such a manner that instead of travelling on the road it dashed against a tree and the two occupants who were agriculturists sustained injuries. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2460
ORDER1. A Public Trust formed and registered on 7-3-1984 in the name and style Chikkamuniyappareddy Memorial Trust, Bangalore represented by its President Dr. KG. Rajureddy is before this Court primarily questioning the legality or otherwise of the Notification in No. HC. PR. ALAO 389 BDA 76-77 issued under Section 19(1) of the City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1945 ('the Improvement Act' for short) published in Karnataka Gazette on 5-5-1977 and the final Notification No. HUD 49 MNJ 78, dated 14-5-1980 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Improvement Act published in Karnataka Gazette, dated 12-6-1980 insofar as they relate to acquisition of land bearing Sy. No. 4/3 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas situated at Kacharakanahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk. Incidentally, petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to take necessary action in pursuance of the resolution made by the 2nd respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA for short) in No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ522
1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been preferred by defendant 2 in the suit, challenging the judgment and decree dated 23-10-1990, delivered by Sri K.M. Thammaiah, Civil Judge/J.M.F.C., Hunsur, in Regular Appeal No. 21 of 1989, whereby the First Appellate Court had in part allowed the appeal of defendant 2 after having held that to the extent of 1/4th share, defendant 1 could make a transfer as defendant 1's share in the property was 1/4th and held the sale deed to that extent of 1/4th share to be valid, while setting aside that sale deed dated 7-2-1972, to the extent of 3/4th share and modified the Trial Court decree as mentioned above, which has been passed in Regular Suit No. 228 of 1984.2. The facts of the case in brief are that plaintiffs and respondents filed the regular suit claiming the following reliefs:(a) a declarative decree declaring that the transfer purporting to be a sale and executed by the registered sale deed dated 7-2-1972, was in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDER1. Heard Sri M. Sivappa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Shantha Kumari, Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri N. Devadas, Advocate for respondent 1.In this case an application under Section 5 of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act (Act 2 of 1979) was made by the grantee who claimed himself to be a Harijan i.e., Scheduled Castes. According to the petitioner's case, the land was granted by the State on 7-5-1952 and Saguvali Chit was issued in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner's case has been that land had been granted free of cost. It was further alleged that as per terms of the grant, the grantee cannot and could not alienate the property. Petitioner's further case is that respondent 1 had illegally obtained the sale deed in respect of 8 guntas of land out of the land granted to the petitioner. That vide sale deed dated 6-5-1957, the sale was effected, and the sale was null and void being in violation of non...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3163
ORDER1. The petitioners are all Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (for short 'the Act'). In these writ petitions they have challenged the circular dated 2-8-1996 at Annexure-A issued by the second respondent to credit the interest accruing on the reserve fund to the account of the reserve fund itself, thereby preventing them from withdrawing the accrued interest. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their counter inter alia contending that the impugned order at Annexure-A has been passed under Section 30-B of the Act and it is in the public interest. Respondent 3 has filed a separate statement of objections, denying the contentions in the writ petitions.3. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, under Section 57(2) of the Act, the Co-operative Societies out of their net profits in any year once required to transfer an amount not being less than 25% of the profits to the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ16; 1997(4)KarLJ238
ORDER1. Being aggrieved by the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, dt. 20-3-97 in Crl.R.P. No. 6/96 setting aside the order of the Prl. J.M.F.C., Gulbarga, D/- 12-12-95 in Crime No. 205/95 of Brahampur Police Station, cancelling the bail granted in favour of the petitioner, he has filed this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are : On the complaint of one Nagamma, the Brahampur Police registered a case in Cr. No. 205/95 for the alleged offence under Ss. 498-A and 306, IPC. The petitioner was remanded to custody on 9-10-95. As the charge-sheet was not filed within 60 days from 9-10-95 on the application of the petitioner, under Section 167 Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate was pleased to release him on 12-12-95 and the charge-sheet came to be filed on 13-12-95. This order was questioned before the learned Sessions Judge by the State. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dt. 20-3-97 set aside the order and directed the Magistrate to take the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ913
ORDER1. The K.G. Halli Police registered a case in Cr.No. 65/97 for offences punishable under Sections 342 and 324, I.P.C. at the first instance and subsequently the second FIR came to be registered on 19-4-97 for the offence under Sec. 307 which came to be added. The petitioners were released by the learned Magistrate when they were produced at the first instance and subsequently, the learned Magistrate refused to release them on bail on the ground that offence of non-bailable nature was alleged. Hence, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court which also rejected their bail application in Crl. Mis. 886/97. Hence, they approached this Court under Sec. 439, Cr.P.C.2. Copy of this petition is served on the learned HCGP who have filed his detailed objections.3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent.4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submitted that the very action taken by the police in arresting the accused...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2678; [1998]229ITR126(KAR); [1998]229ITR126(Karn)
The Court 1. In this reference made under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), we have been called upon to consider the question of payment of interest on refunds admissible to assessees which has already been considered recently by the Supreme Court in all its possible aspects. The decision of the Supreme Court is in the case of Modi Industries vs . CIT : [1995]216ITR759(SC) . 2. We will first set out the basic facts. During the previous year ending on 31st December, 1982 pertaining to the asst. yr. 1982-83, the assessee had paid advance tax to the tune of Rs. 9,07,19,323. There was also deduction of tax at source to the extent of Rs. 44,427. The original assessment for the period was completed under s. 143(3) of the Act on 25th February, 1985. The tax assessed was at Rs. 9,16,05,911. Thus, as per the original assessment order, the petitioner was required to pay an additional amount by way of tax to the extent of Rs. 8,42,161. 3. Against the said order of assessment, th...
Tag this Judgment!