Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2006(4)KarLJ707
ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Legal Representatives of Sri B. Bava are before this Court challenging the order dated 25.10.1978 passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore in this writ petition.2. Petitioner late Bava was in possession and enjoyment of 5 cents of land in Survey No. 25B-1A of Battaya Koppala of Maloor village. He was residing in a farmhouse situated in the land in question for several years. Respondent No. 3, now deceased, filed an application for registration of occupancy rights in respect of Survey No. 25B, measuring 25 cents. Respondent No. 3 claimed 5 cents of land which was in possession of the petitioner. Petitioner applied only for 5 cents along with the farmhouse which was in his possession. An application was filed before the Land Tribunal, and the Land Tribunal without issuing notice to the petitioner granted occupancy rights in favour of Respondent No. 3. The said order was challenged in this Court in Writ Petition No. 16801 of 1983. In the light of constitution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.1. This appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is directed against the order dated 01.04.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No. 17894/2007 dismissing the said Writ Petition. The appellants filed the said Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the preliminary notification dated 17.04.2003 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the 'Act') and the final notification dated 21.06.2007 (Annexure-G) issued under Section 6(1) of the Act in respect of 37 guntas in land bearing Sy. No. 8/2 of the Mallikapura Village in Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.2. The 1st appellant is the husband of the 2nd appellant and father of Appellants - 3 to 5. According to the appellants, the land in question is their joint family property. The Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, issued a notification dated 17.04.2003 under Section 4(1) of the Act proposing to acquire the land bearing Sy. No. 8/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1981Kant216
Rama Jois, J.1. In this batch of 22 writ petitions filed by the Forest Contractors, the following questions of law, arise for consideration:(i) Whether Section 98A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter refer-9 red to as 'the Act') inserted into it by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) 'Act, 1976 with effect from 24-12-1975, which imposes a tax called forest development tax on the consideration paid for the forest produce disposed of by the State Government, is unconstitutional?(ii) Whether the tax imposed by Section 98A of the Act which came into force from 24-12-1975 is leviable on the balance of the amount of consideration due and paid after that date, in respect of the sale of forest produce concluded before 24-12-1975?2. M Section 93A was introduced into the Act by the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 promulgated by the Governor, in the first instance. Subsequently, the Ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act 15 of 1:976. Section 98A reads as follows:-'98A. L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR1466
Murlidher Rao, J.1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in O. S. 93 of 1971, challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge Civil Station, Bangalore, dated 22-2-1975, by which their suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction is dismissed, with costs Suit property is S.No. 107 of Byadarhalli Village in Civil Station, Bangalore.2. Plaintiff-1 claims to be the purchaser of different sites, alleged to have been formed in the land, on 8-1-1960, from Hemanna-1st defendant; he has sold different sites to other plaintiffs, who in turn have sold them to yet others. On the same day i.e. 8-l-1980, other plaintiffs, also claim to have purchased various sites in the said survey number from 1st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession. Admittedly on the alleged sites no structures have come up and the land continues to be vacant.3. In retrospect, it is necessary to narrate certain facts, regarding this land, which has been the subject matter of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR254; 1990(3)KarLJ437
ORDERK.A. Swami, J.1. In the light of the decisions of this Court and also of the other High Courts taking different views on the question involved in this Civil Revision Petition, it is referred to a Division Bench.2. This C.R.P. is preferred against the order dated 24-8-1389 passed by the learned Additional Small Causes Judge (S.C.C.H.3), Bangalore City in Ex.No.4737/1989. The petitioner is an objector to the decree and the respondent is the decree-holder.3. The respondent is the landlord of the premises in question. He obtained an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(f) and (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 4-1-1989 against Sri A.M. Bhatia. The order of eviction was put into execution in Ex.Case No. 4737/1989. The petitioner objected to the same by filing an objection under Section 47 C.P.C. stating that the order of eviction passed in H.R.C. No. 2828/1986 against A.M. Bhatia was not binding upon him and that he was in possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR2722
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners who are traders in agricultural produce have challenged the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Karnataka Act No. 17/1980) by which various items of agricultural produce including oil seeds were specified in the schedule which could be notified for the purpose of regulating their marketing under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 as also Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, as amended by Amending Act 29/87, by which the sale and purchase of the agricultural produce is directed to take place only within the market yard or market sub-yard or the sub-market yard as the case may be, as also the provisions of Section 65 as amended by Act No. 29/87 and Section 65-A inserted into the Act by the said amendment which provides for fixing the time for payment of market-fee and provide for penalty for no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR951; 1996(1)KarLJ265
ORDERHari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. As these seven Revision Petitions involve same question of law and same set of circumstances, these Revision Petitions are being decided and disposed of by one common Order and let a copy of this Order be placed in each of the Revision Petitions as C.R.P.No. 1343 of 1995 is being made and taken as the leading case.2. Heard Sri R.K. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the Revisionist and Sri M.N. Gadag, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.3. The main point which has been urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the Revisionist for consideration is that in these Cases the application under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for referring the matter to the Civil Court has been made after the expiry of the period of limitation and, as the application under Section 18(1) of the Act has been made beyond the period of limitation, the Civil Court s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR833
ORDERA.J. Sadashiva, J.1. In view of the principal question of law and the reliefs being one and the same, in all these petitions, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Petition Nos. 9357/96, 10750/96, 10630/96 and 11374/96 are originally filed for quashing the Notification dated March 13, 1996 issued by the Director of Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, the first respondent in all these petitions, inviting applications for the posts of Assistant Professors in various subjects and, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion and to prohibit the respondent to resort to appointment to those posts by direct recruitment.3. Writ Petition No. 36710/95 is filed for a writ of mandamus to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from the post of lecturer to that of an Assistant Professor in Cardiology as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules produced at Annexure-A and the decision of the Sub-Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR2599; 1995(4)KarLJ214
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. In these Petitions, petitioners are calling in question the Constitutional validity of Section 24 of the Karnataka Excise Act as amended by Act No. 2/1994 and the' Rules framed under the Act known as the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) (Amendment) Rules, 1995 issued vide Notification No. FD 10 PES 95(i) dated 31st May, 1995 as ultra vires the Act and beyond the legislative competence of the State.2. The petitioners are either Wine Merchants Association or the dealers in Indian and Foreign liquor. They obtained licences from the concerned authorities as provided under the relevant statute and the Rules i.e., the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the '1968 Rules'). The petitioners have licences either in Form CL-1, CL-2 or CL-9 for dealing liquor in wholesale or retail - or running Refreshment Rooms or Bar & Restaurants. Petitioners contend that their trade is controlled by the provi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3072; 1996(5)KarLJ719
ORDERRajendra Babu, J1. In these Petitions, petitioners are calling in question the validity of Act 2/1994 which came into force with effect from 8th October, 1993 by which Section 24 of Karnataka Excise Act was substituted enablingthe State Government to accept payment of a sum or levy such licence fee or privilege fee as may be prescribed in consideration of grant of lease or licence or both by or under the Karnataka Excise Act. Section 3 of the Validation Act provides that Rule 8 of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquor) Rules are valid notwithstanding any Judgment to the contrary on the basis that the said Rule had been framed under the Karnataka Excise Act as amended by Act 2 of 1994.2. Identical contentions urged in support of the challenge to the validity of the said provisions of the Act or the reasonableness thereof have been considered in Writ Petition Nos. 20344 to 20421/1995 and connected matters (disposed of on 27/7/1995) : ILR1995KAR2599 and rejected. Henc...
Tag this Judgment!