Karnataka Court February 2008 Judgments

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Shri Maruti Babu Takale and a ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR2216; 2008(4)KarLJ753; 2008(2)KCCR1157; 2008(3)AIRKarR316; AIR2008NOC2068; 2008AIHC2480(Kar)

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal though listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, finally heard and disposed of by this order.2. Thirteen guntas of land comprised in resurvey Nos. 262/1 A, 262/1B, 262/1C, 262/2A and 262/2b as well as 1 guntas of land comprised in R.S. No. 271/2A and 272/2B of Pattanakudi Village, Chikodi Taluk, Belgaum District were acquired for a public purpose to wit for construction of percolation water tank by issuing 4(1) notification dated 9-6-1998. The land acquisition officer after holding award enquiry and based on sales statistics fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 37,100/- per acre which, on reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the instance of the owners, the Reference Court adopting capitalisation method, placing reliance on Ex.P2, the yield notification, and Ex. P3, the price list, enhanced the market value of the sugarcane growing lands to Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and the...

Sri Venkateshwara Hill Crushers Represented Its Proprietor R. Sriram S ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2008(4)KarLJ230; 2008(3)KCCR1329; 2008(3)AIRKarR403

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the respondents.2. The petitioner are questioning the validity of the Circulars issued by the State Government prohibiting the grant or renewal of quarry leases in gomal lands.3. The facts and circumstances leading upto this petition are as follows:The first petitioner claims to be a holder of quarry lease for winning of granite (a minor mineral) granted by the State Government under the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the KMMC Rules). It is the said petitioner's case that a lease was so granted from 13.9.2001, in a portion of survey No. 6 of Ravagodly Village, Bangalore South Taluk. As the permission for lease was about to expire, the petitioner had applied for a renewal of the quarry lease, as provided under the KMMC Rules, before the competent authority, by an application dated 24.5.2006.4. The second petitioner claims to represent the interest of several ...

H.S. Prasannakrishnamurthy S/O H.K. Subbanna and ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. th ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2008KAR2620; 2008(6)KarLJ244; 2008(4)KCCRSN309; 2008(4)AIRKarR90; AIR2008NOC2305

ORDERAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.1. In all these petitions the allotment of the posts of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of City Municipal Councils, Town Municipal Councils and Town Panchayats to particular categories are challenged.2. I proceed to consider the general submissions first and thereafter consider the specific contentions with reference to each of the petitions.3. Sriyuths Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned senior counsel appearing for M/s. Jayakumar S. Patil Associates, A.S. Ponnanna, M.V. Hiremath, S.S. Koti, Y. Lakshmikanth Reddy, N. Ravindranath Kamath, K. Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the petitioners urged the following contentions:(i) The list allotting the posts of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of various Urban Local Bodies ['U.L.B.s' for short] is drawn so as to favour a particular party, namely, the Indian National Congress Party. Its leader, Sri Mallikarjuna Kharge has written a letter on 18th October, 2007 to Sri Subhash Chandra, Secretary, Urban Development Departm...

Sri Bharath Vs. the State by Bhatkal Town Police Station

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2009KAR985; 2009(4)KarLJ639

ORDERC.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. I have perused the records.2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments in respect of considering the provisions of Probation of Offenders Acts, 1958 to the case in hand. Considering the submissions of both sides, the point that arises for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?'3. The relevant facts of the case leading to this revision petition are as follows;That on 31.5.2002 at about 9.35 accused No. 1 was driving the KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA09 F 1271 at Shifa Cross, Bhatkal. At the time, the charge sheet witness No. 1 was alighting from the said bus. The bus moved all of a sudden and she fell down and sustained injuries. The bus driver of the said bus was driving the bus with high speed and also in a negligent manner. Therefore this acciden...

Commissioner of Wealth-tax and anr. Vs. Arif Noor Mohammed

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]314ITR129(KAR); [2009]314ITR129(Karn); [2009]183TAXMAN269(Kar)

Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The Revenue is before us against the order dated May 17, 2005, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' in W. T. A. No. 25/Bang/2003 for the assessment year 1998-99. This appeal has been preferred under Section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as 'the Act').3. The appeal before the Tribunal was preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) -II, Bangalore, dated February 11, 2003. The said appeal having been allowed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is before us challenging the correctness of the said order.4. Even though learned Counsel for the appellants has formulated three questions of law, but after having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the records, we are of the considered opinion that only the following subst...

Commissioner of Gift-tax and anr. Vs. Smt. S. Parvathamma

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [2009]316ITR438(KAR); [2009]316ITR438(Karn); [2009]184TAXMAN48(Kar)

Deepak Verma, J.1. Heard Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Parthasarathi, learned Counsel for the respondent.2. The Revenue feeling aggrieved by the order dated January 20, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore 'B' Bench, Bangalore, in G.T.A. No. 3/Bang/2003 for the assessment year 1997-98, is before us challenging the same by filing this appeal under Section 27 of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, read with Section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter shall be referred to in short as 'the Act'), on variety of grounds.3. Facts, in short, are mentioned hereinbelow:One Sannappa was the owner of the properties bearing Nos. 3 and 4 situated at New Santhepet, Mysore. He bequeathed the aforesaid properties to his daughter, respondent-assessee by executing a registered will in her favour on June 2, 1966. After the death of Sannappa, the assessee having become the absolute owner of the said properties, executed a sale deed thereof in favour...

The Spl Land Acquisition Officer, Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shri Maru ...

Court: Karnataka

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal though listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, fined by hoard and disposed of by this order.2. Thirteen guntas of land comprised in resurvey Nos. 262/1A, 262/1B, 262/1C, 262/2A, and 262/2B as well as 1 guntas of land comprised in R.S. No. 271/2A and 271/2D of Pattanakudi Village, Chikodi Taluk, Belgaum District ware acquired for a public purpose to wit for construction of percolation water tank by issuing 4(1) notification dated 9.6.1998. The land acquisition officer after holding award enquiry and based on sales statistics fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 37,100/- per acre which, on reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, at the instance of the owners, the Reference Court adopting capitalisation method, placing reliance on Ex. P2, the yield notification, and Ex. P3, the price list, enhanced the market value of the sugarcane growing lands to Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre and t...

Sri Bharath S/O Manjunath Naik Vs. the State by Bhatkal Town Police St ...

Court: Karnataka

ORDERC.R. Kumaraswamy, J.1. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, I have perused the records.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner restricts his arguments in respect of considering the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the case in hand. Considering the submissions of both sides, the point that arises for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958?'3. The relevant facts of the case leading to this revision petition are as follows:That on 31.5.2002 at about 9.35 accused No. 1 was driving the KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA 09 F 1271 at Shifa Cross, Bhatkal. At that time, the charge sheet witness No. 1 was alighting from the said bus. The bus moved all of a sudden and she fell down and sustained injuries. The bus driver of the said bus was driving the bus with high speed and also in a negligent manner. Therefore this accide...

Khaja Bee. Vs. Jamia Majeed.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2009(1)KCCR753

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant in OS No. 446 of 1975, on the file of Court of Principal Munsiff at Bellary, has a very long history behind it. The suit of the plaintiff Jamia Masjeed, Bellary, represented by its mutavalli Khaja Mohiddin was for a declaration of title of the Masjid in respect of the suit schedule property an immovable property, a property said to be an open site with thatched sheds in Lalakaman area, bearing Door No. 230 (in 1925) and at present bearing Door No. 803, 804, 805 and 806 in V Ward of Bellary City Municipality, measuring east to west 50 feet, north to south 25 feet is a property belonging to the Masjid, acquired through a gift deed of the year 1925, in favour of the Masjid by one Smt. Hayathbi, through a registered gift deed; that ever since the Masjid was in possession and enjoyment of the property, but in the year 1973, the defendant trespassed into a portion of this property and ...

Neela D/O Bhanu Naik Vs. Saroja D/O Keera Naik and ors.

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR2008Kant132; ILR2008KAR2545; 2009(2)KarLJ147

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.1. This second appeal udder Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure involves two short but interesting questions of law. The first is as to whether the customary practice prevalent in a community can prevail over the statutory provisions, particularly a customary practice of aliya Santana can prevail over the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [for short, the Act], and secondly as to whether the parties by their conduct start a custom afresh, though such custom was not prevalent earlier but sought to be followed by the act of parties?2. This second appeal is by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 101 of 1992, on the file of court of Munsiff at Karwar, praying for plaintiffs 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties and for division by metes and bounds, which suit was rightly decreed by the trial court came to be reversed in the R.A. No. 7 of 1997, on the file of court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Karwar, wherein the learned judge of the lower ...