Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1998Kant153; 1998(2)KarLJ92
ORDER1. 'To be or not to be', that is the question or in other words, where the circumstances seriously endanger safety, whether it is the fundamental duty of the State to take all necessary steps to save and protect life is the basic issue involved in this litigation. The subsidiary question is as to whether the State can permit citizens to expose themselves to grave danger that may jeopardise life and limb or whether, it is the function of the law to prevent such reckless exposure; to which the answer is that attempted suicide is a criminal offence. In the context of the second aspect of the matter what this Court needs to also examine is the consequential situation that arises wherein public resources are involved at the post disaster stage and whether the exposure to risk in such instances must necessarily be minimised. The answer to the last question involves anexamination of the issue as to whether a class of citizens who insist on flying in the face of providence by contending t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2844; 1999(1)KarLJ16
ORDER1. Though this petition is listed for preliminary hearing, the same is heard on merits and disposed of by this order, with theconsent of the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides and on issuing rule.2. Whether the Government has authority of law to cancel the allotment made by the Bangalore Development Authority under Rule 5 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 for short 'the Rules' is the question in controversy in this petition.3. Rule 5 of the rules authorises the Bangalore Development Authority, hereinafter called 'the B.D.A.' to dispose of stray sites in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. The said rule reads thus.-'5. Allotment of stray sites: The Bangalore Development Authority shall dispose of stray sites in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government'.4. By circular dated October 17, 1992, the State Government issued revised guidelines for the disposal of stray sites as provided under Rule 5 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ659
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for calling for the records pertaining to ADS/PTL/CR/7/94-95 disposed by order dated 23-6-1997, pertaining to the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-division, Mangalore and for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-6-1997, in that case, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-D to this writ petition.2. The facts of the case will per se reveal that this case has been an attempt to play fraud on the Court by filing a document which prima facie appears to be a forged document and prima facie appears to have been numbered ante-dated.According to the petitioner's case, respondent 1, agreed and compromised with the petitioner on 27-5-1970, that the land measuring 20 cents of Sy. Nos. 9/2-A and 15-B, was pending for darkhast in the proceedings and that out of 20 cents, the 1st respondent agreed to part with the petitioner 10 cents for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,100...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR2820
T.N. Vallinayagam, J.1.The first defendant which is the Municipal Corporation is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit for declaration that the Corporation has no right to construct stalls or shops touching on the eastern boundary of the plaintiff's plot and for consequential reliefs based on such declaration. In O.S. 13/82 on the file of the 1 Addl. Munsiff, Dharwad, was dismissed on 14.3.1983. On appeal therefrom in R.A. 46/83, the learned Prl. Civil Judge, Dharwad, reversed the decree of dismissal and allowed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal.2. The claim of the plaintiff was based on the basis that there is an open site in front of the building, cannot be spoiled by putting up stalls and such construction also was in violation of what is known as 'Ribbon Rules'. The defendant Municipal Corporation resisted the suit saying that shops are not built on road side portion and that they are actually built on the drainage portion. They do not affect in any manner the use of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3230; 1998(1)KarLJ399
ORDER1. The petitioner has challenged the notice calling for the meeting to consider no confidence motion against the petitioner in this petition.2. The petitioner is the elected Adhyaksha of Kuppellur Gram Panchayat. Some of the members of the Panchayat moved a no confidence motion against the petitioner by giving the notice to the Assistant Commissioner as contemplated under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'). Pursuant to the said notice the Assistant Commissioner called for the meeting by his notice dated 29-7-1997. This, according to the petitioner is illegal on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner has no authority whatsoever to call for the meeting within the expiry of 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 3. Proviso to Section 49 of the Act, reads thus: 'Provided that no such resolution shall be moved unless notice of the resolution is signed by not less than one-third of the total number of members and at least ten days notice has been gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ25
ORDER1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M.R. Rajgopal Iyengar and Sri A.C. Balaraj for respondent 2 as well as Smt. Bharathi Nagesh, learned Government Advocate.2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that the petitioner filed this petition for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-03-1997 passed by respondent 1 in M.A.G. (2) T.T. 13 of 1990-91, Annexure-K to the petition. Petitioner has also sought for issue of a writ of prohibition, prohibiting respondent 1 to proceed with the enquiry as per the proceedings in M.A.G. (2) T.T. 13 of 1990-91 as per Annexure-H and K since respondent 2 has no right to continue in possession on the expiry of the lease.3. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 123/1 in Dodda Alahalli village, Kanakapura taluk, in Bangalore rural district, measuring 21 guntas. The petitioner, according to the petitioner's case, had leased out this land in favour of the present respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR2896
ORDERG. Patri Basavana Goud, J.1. The third respondent's husband was a 'home worker', and, as such, an employee within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 ('Beedi Act' for short). On his death, his widow, the third respondent applied to the concerned authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Gratuity Act' for short) for payment of gratuity in respect of her husband who had been a 'home worker' for over thirty years prior to his death. Petitioner-Management of M/s. Bagi Beedi Factory, Hubli, contended that the husband of third respondent, though a 'home worker' and an employee within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Beedi Act, was not an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, and, as such, the third respondent was not entitled to gratuity sought for. The authorities rejected this contention of the employer and passed an order in favour of the third respondent. In this petition und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(4)KarLJ247
ORDER1. This revision is filed by the tenant to challenge the order dated 25-10-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Nanjangud in appeal No. DALR. AAK. 123 of 1987, whereby the Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 1 by setting aside theorder dated 13-10-1986 passed by the respondent 2, Land Tribunal, Kollegal, by granting occupancy right to the revision petition.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Manjula Devi for Sri R.B. Sadashivappa, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent 1, Smt. S.N. Sudha for Sri G.S. Visweswara and the learned High Court Government Pleader, Sri S.S. Guttal, appearing for the respondent 2, Land Tribunal.3. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:That the petitioner herein had filed Form 7 before the Land Tribunal claiming occupancy right in respect of 1 acre 20 cents out of 3 acres 40 cents in S. No. 360/2 of Mudigunda Village, Kollegal Taluk; that at the first instance by an order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ304
ORDER1. The third respondent's husband was a 'home worker', and, as such, an employee within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 ('Beedi Act' for short). On his death, his widow, the third respondent applied to the concerned authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Gratuity Act' for short) for payment of gratuity in respect of her husband who had been a 'home worker' for over thirty years prior to his death. Petitioner-Management of M/s. Bagi Beedi Factory, Hubli, contended that the husband of third respondent, though a 'home worker' and an employee within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Beedi Act, was not an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, and, as such, the third respondent was not entitled to gratuity sought for. The authorities rejected this contention of the employer and passed an order in favour of the third respondent. In this petition under Article 226 of the Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3400; 1998(1)KarLJ752
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.2. As per the impugned order, the Land Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was in surplus land to the extent of 61 acres 14 guntas and so it ordered that it should vest in Government and directed the Tahasildar to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the impugned order. It is a highly arbitrary order.4. Before passing the order in question, the Chairman has not followed the procedure under Rules 24(1) and 17 of the K.L.R. Rules. The law in this regard has been laid down by this Court in Parvatevva v State of Karnataka . The Tribunal is directed to read this decision and then proceed to dispose of the matter afresh. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands sold after 24-1-1971 should be taken into consideration while passing the o...
Tag this Judgment!