Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR3207; 1998(5)KarLJ673
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents and Mr. S.V. Jagannath, learned High Court Government Advocate, for respondents 4 and 5. 2. In this writ petition the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Haven, dated 24-12-1988 in Case No. TEN. OCP. SR. 32, Sangoor rejecting Form No. 7 filed by the petitioner (since deceased by his L, Rs) claiming occupancy rights in respect of four lands viz., Nameof villageR.S.No.ExtentSangoorvillage4022-31-0Kulenoorvillage21/110-11-0Sangoorvillage3924-29Devihosurvillage281/114-19-0has been challenged. 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner-tenant filed appeal before the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Haven, in L.R.A. No. 33 of 1989. When the matter was pending before the Additional Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Haveri, the Appellate Authority came to be abolished. Consequently the petitioner filed Civil Petition in No. 75 of 1990 which has been converted into the prese...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ572
ORDERR.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. Constitutional validity of the Bangalore City Planning Area Zonal Regulations (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, Karnataka Act No. 2 of 1996, hereinafter called the 'Act', has been challenged in this public interest litigation on the grounds that the impugned legislation is unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Act is alleged to have been passed with an object to render ineffective all binding judicial pronouncements between the parties which is not only unwarranted, but also unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is intended to authorise the judicially determined illegal constructions and thus affect the supremacy of Rule of Law. The Act is stated to have the effect of undoing the undertakings given by the parties to this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thus is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The impugned legislation is contended to have the effect of setting aside the adjudication of the disputes betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ112
R.P. Sethi, C.J. 1. The appellants have filed an application under Section 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1990 read with Section 151 of the CPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with prayer to consider Appeal No. LRA 170 of 1987 filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Bangalore Rural, as a writ petition and dispose of the same after condoning the delay for which a separate application was filed. The petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that as there did not exist any provision for condoning the delay, the application was barred by time and not maintainable.2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the application under Section 17 of the Act were that, predecessors in interest of the appellants had filed application in Form 7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of lands bearing Sy. No. 12 measuring 20 guntas, Sy. No. 13 measuring 1 acre, Sy. No. 90 measuring 1 acre 20 guntas and Sy. No. 128 measuring 6 ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR889; 1998(1)KarLJ539
ORDER1. This revision petition is filed by the owner to challenge the order dated 15-9-1989, in Appeal No. LRA/H/70/86-MAN, passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Mangalore. In passing the impugned order, the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal of the revision petition had confirmed the order of the Land Tribunal dated 14-3-1986 in No. LRT949/84-85, granting right of ownership to the respondent 2 under Section 38 of the Land Reforms Act.2. I heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri B.L. Acharya and the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents 1 and 2, Sri K. Chandrashekhar. The respondent 3, Land Tribunal and the respondent 4, State are represented by the learned High Court Government Pleader, Smt. K. R. Meena Kumari.3. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder:That the revision petitioner herein had filed a suit in Original Suit No. 177 of 1980 on 29-7-1980 as against the contesting respondents 1 and 2 for their ejectment, before the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ141
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire land measuring four acres comprising Survey No. 28/1 of Mallathahalli was issued on 28-12-1992 which was challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition No. 29081 of 1993. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that as final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act had not been issued, the writ petition was premature. Liberty was given to the appellant to approach the Court in the event the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed completely ignoring the facts of the case inasmuch as notification under Section 6(1) of the Act in fact had been issued by the Competent Authority and the appellant was permitted to challenge the same by amending his writ petition.2. The record of the proceedings supports the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. It appears that during the pendency of the writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ125
R.P. Sethi1. Residential premises bearing Nos. C.S. 42, 43 and 44 in Ward No. III of Bijapur City were leased-out by the appellant for running Government Primary School. He filed HRC No. 60 of 1981 under Section 21(1)(a), (j) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') for possession of the aforesaid premises. The petition was allowed by the Munsiff, Bijapur. The District Judge and the High Court confirmed the action of the Munsiff. As the respondents failed to resist the claim of the appellant for eviction, they resorted to acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, Notification under Section 4(1) was issued by the Appropriate Authority in pursuance of which the appellant filed his objections. It is submitted that without holding an enquiry or affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard, the respondents issued the final notification. It was submitted that as the acquisition proceedings were tainted with mala fide and were intended to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(4)KarLJ118
R.P. Sethi, C.J.1. Aggrieved by the Notification No. LAQ (1) SR. 16 : 85-86, dated 7-4-1986 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, ('the Act' for short) Annexure-A and the Notification No. RD. 53.AOB.87, dated 12-6-1987 issued under Section 6 of the Act, Annexure-E, respondent 1 herein, filed W.P. No. 15912 of 1987 with prayer for setting aside the same alleging it to be against the provisions of law and the result of extraneous consideration. It was further submitted that no enquiry within the meaning of Section 5-A of the Act was held and no reasonable opportunity was provided of being heard before passing the final notification. The learned Single Judge found that there was no substance in the submission of the respondent 1 herein insofar as he complained of non-holding of enquiry under Section 5-A or made grievance regarding not providing adequate opportunity. However the writ petition was allowed on the ground of action of the respondent-authorities being the conse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(1)KarLJ121
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri I.G. Gachchinmath and learned Counsel for the respondents.2. By order dated 9-11-1995, passed by the Hon'ble R. Ramakrishna, J., the appellants were permitted to withdraw the appeal as per memo dated 16-10-1995 and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The order dated 9-11-1995, is being quoted herewith verbatim.--'The appellants are permitted to withdraw this appeal as per the memo dated 16-10-1995.The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn'.The appellants had filed that memo along with an affidavit for permission to withdraw the appeal as according to the appellants, the parties have entered into a compromise and an electro state copy of the compromise alleged appears to have entered on stamp paper of Rs. 20/- has been filed along with the memo and on that basis the appeal had been dismissed as withdrawn.3. After a lapse of almost one year on 28-11-1996, the present appellants have moved this I.A. VI with a prayer that the order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)148; ILR1998KAR2885; 1998(2)KarLJ716
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court and who being public spirited, always raised voice against the acts of insult or acts having tendency to insult or disgrace the things of National importance, such as National Flag, National Anthem, or the Institutions like Court i.e., judiciary or Judicature established under the Constitution, is seeking direction of the Court for deletion of such things which have tendency to degrade or disgrace things of National importance, dignity of the Court or dignity of women or the like and has prayed for issuance of writ or direction in the nature of prohibition or writ of mandamus prohibiting or directing the respondents not to exhibit as well directing them to remove the scenes which have tendency of degrading the status of National Flag and National Anthem or of judicial system or the dignity of woman, which according to the petitioner have been shown in the film Jackie Chan. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1067
ORDERH. Rangavittalachar, J.1. This petition under Section 50 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') is by the tenant and the alleged sub-lessee, petitioners herein, against the order of the Judge of small causes, Bangalore passed in HRC No. 332/86 allowing the petition of the landlady.2. The respondent's deceased husband one B.S. Ganesha Rao filed an eviction petition in HRC No. 332/1986 on two grounds:-3. That the first petitioner contrary to the law and the agreement has transferred the schedule premises by way of sub-lease to the second petitioner herein. Therefore they are liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(f) of the Act.4. That the first petitioner is having a suitable premises of his own in the civil area and therefore liable to be evicted under Section 21(1)(P).5. Subsequently the said Ganesha Rao by means of amendment added one more ground of eviction namely that he was an unemployed person and in order to spend his time usefully wants to start a busines...
Tag this Judgment!