Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR576
..... the petitioners establishes the mala fide intention on their part to enrich themselves unjustly at the cost of the 4th respondent-society.it is further contended that the acquisition of lands are not for a company, therefore chapter vii of the act, is not attracted, whereas the acquisition of land by the government is for the benefit of the 4th respondent-society which is for a public purpose and therefore it is submitted that there is no illegality ..... ramachandra, learned counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the society is a registered house building co-operative society under the provisions of the karnataka co-operative societies act; that a three man committee constituted by the government considered the representation of the 4th respondent society and thereafter approval was accorded by the government for initiating the acquisition proceedings for an ..... srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 4th respondent - society is a company as defined under section 3(e)(vi) of the act; therefore the person who is appointed to perform the functions of the deputy commissioner ought to have followed the provisions of the karnataka land acquisition (companies) rules, 1973 for the purpose of acquisition of land for a company, in the instant case, as the deputy commissioner has ..... on the blank papers were made use of by the said sri rangarajan only to get their lands acquired by the government, when they received notices pursuant to the preliminary notification. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... at this stage, the writ petition was filed by the respondents in the high court of karnataka praying for quashing of preliminary notification dated 15th september, 2000 and final notification dated 15th february, 2005, inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) that provisions of section 11, 11a of the old la act are made applicable to the proceedings under kaid act by virtue of section 30 of the kaid act and the deputy commissioner has not passed any award as required under section ..... the appellants issued a preliminary notification under section 28(1) of the karnataka industrial areas development act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as kiad act ) as it wanted to acquire certain lands, including that of the respondents for the purpose of developing the said lands as an industrial area and the same was published in the karnataka gazette on 15th september, 2000. ..... - (1) where any land is acquired by the state government under this chapter, the state government shall pay for such acquisition compensation in accordance with the provisions of this act. ..... the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 (central act 1 of 1894) shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of the enquiry and award by the deputy commissioner, the reference to court, the apportionment of compensation and the payment of compensation, in respect of lands acquired under this chapter. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... however, on 23.1.2014 a notification bearing no.ld159 let2013came to be issued by the government of karnataka, labour department which reads as under: in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section(1) of section 20 of the employees compensation act, 1923( central act 08 of 1923) the government of karnataka, in supersession of all the previous notifications issued in this behalf, hereby appoint the principal/additional/senior civil judges specified in column(2) of the table below as commissioner for employees compensation ..... this writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in b group, this day, the court made the following: order1 the petitioner - insurance company is before this court seeking for the following reliefs: i issue any writ or writs holding that use of chapter ii and consequently order 21 of code of civil procedure- 1908 in recovery of amount as initiated by xii additional senior civil judge and xxxvii acmm, bengaluru as per annexure-e dated ..... notice to r1 is h/s) - 2 - wp no.36618 of 2018 this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india praying to issue any appropriate writ or wrtis holding that use of chapter ii and consequently order21of code of civil procedure- 1908 in recovery of amount as initiated by xii additionalsenior civil judge and xxxvii acmm, bengaluru s per annexure-e dated2302.2018 and assumption of power to execute in pursuance to annexure-f are opposed to section31of employees compensation act-1923 and etc. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : [1985]155ITR667(KAR); [1985]155ITR667(Karn)
..... the very first rule on the construction of the statues where the language is plain has been neatly set out by maxell on the interpretation of statues (eleventh edition), chapter -1, preliminary survey, in these words : 'a statue is will of legislature, and the fundamental rule of interpretation to which all others are subordinate, is that a statue is to be expounded 'according to the ..... of an order of tribunal or the first appellate authority under the act, it is just and reasonable interest on such refunds as in the united states of america (vide chapter 13, pages 1262-1263 of world tax series-taxation in the united states published by harward law school, 1963 edition). ..... reversing the decree of the trail court, expressed thus (p.233) : 'under the interest act (act 32 of 1839), which introduced into india, the english interest act, 3 and 4 will.iv, c.42, the court can allow interest if the amount claimed is certain which is payable at a certain ..... the court there held in that in a case which does not fall within the interest act, interest cannot be allowed by way of damages; it may be allowed where there is an agreement for the payment of interest, or, it is payable by the usage of ..... is in accord with certain accepted cannons of construction, the learned judge proceeded to observe thus (p.651) : 'the word 'paid' in section 50 has to be understood in the context and in the light of of the chapter for which the provision has been made as 'payable'. ..... supreme court in state of karnataka v. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... areas development board in the matter of land acquisition proceedings vide notification under section 28[1] dated 13.03.2012 and notification dated 04.12.2012 and quash the preliminary notification dated 13.3.2012 under section 28[1] of karnataka industrial areas development board act 1966 at annexure-c and final notification dated 4.12.2012 under section 28[4] at annexure-d duly gazetted and published form the office of respondent no.1 in respect of petitioners lands being ..... as per the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act, 2013 and etc; these writ petitions are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to a] declare that the provisions of section 3[1] of chapter ii and provisions of sections 28 to 31 of the karnataka industrial areas development act 1966 [karnataka act no.18/1966] as unconstitutional being repugnant and inconsistent with the provisions of right to fair compensation ..... industrial area, by the state government under the karnataka industrial areas development act, 1966 (karnataka act no.18/1996) and also the provisions of sections 28 to 31 in chapter vii in the said act relating to acquisition and disposal of land for the purpose of development of industries in such industrial areas notified under section 3 of the act, is questioned as the said provisions are repugnant to the provisions of the 2013 act (central act no.30/2013), which provides for acquisition of land for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
..... measuring 9 acre 7 guntas including 8 guntas of kharab land in sy.no.71 of archakarahalli village, kasaba hobli, ramanagar taluk and district vide preliminary notification dated 27.2.2007 vide annexure-d and d1 and final declaration dated 18.6.2007 vide annexure-g published under section 28(4) of industrial area development act, 1966 published in the karnataka gazette on 18.6.2007 have lapsed under sections 24, 25, 114 of the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation ..... industrial area, by the state government under the karnataka industrial areas development act, 1966 (karnataka act no.18/1996) and also the provisions of sections 28 to 31 in chapter vii in the said act relating to acquisition and disposal of land for the purpose of 60 development of industries in such industrial areas notified under section 3 of the act, is questioned as the said provisions are repugnant to the provisions of the 2013 act (central act no.30/2013), which provides for acquisition of land ..... chapter ii and provisions of sections 28 to 31 of the karnataka industrial areas development act 1966 [karnataka ..... . section 5 in chapter iii of the act, provides for the establishment and incorporation of the karnataka industrial areas development board, for the purposes of securing the establishment of industrial areas in the state of karnataka and generally for promoting the rapid and orderly establishment and development of industries and for providing industrial infrastructural .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... have clearly been inserted, keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the said act of 2013 and so long as the said mandatory requirements contained in chapter-ii have not been exempted by issuing / publishing a duly gazetted gazette notification in the official gazette in accordance with section 10-a of the said act of 2013 (karnataka amendment), any acquisition and a preliminary notification 3 5 issued without following or complying with the said mandatory requirements/procedure would be vitiated, illegal ..... 14.2 insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the state that the subject acquisition proceedings are in the nature of an infrastructure project as defined in section 10- 4 3 a(b) of the said act of 2013, which exempts following the procedure under sections 4 to 8 of chapter ii, thereby rendering the preliminary notification valid and legal is concerned, needless to state that in view of my finding above that the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal and invalid, there is no exemption whatsoever available to the ..... petitioners submits that the impugned notifications are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the said act of 2013 and the said rules (karnataka) of 2015 and the same deserve to be quashed, since the mandatory requirements of rules 21 and 22 of the said rules of 2015 had not been followed by the respondents - state prior to issuing the impugned preliminary notification in addition to the fact that the notification dated 16.05.2020 said to have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... have clearly been inserted, keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the said act of 2013 and so long as the said mandatory requirements contained in chapter-ii have not been exempted by issuing / publishing a duly gazetted gazette notification in the official gazette in accordance with section 10-a of the said act of 2013 (karnataka amendment), any acquisition and a preliminary notification 3 5 issued without following or complying with the said mandatory requirements/procedure would be vitiated, illegal ..... 14.2 insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the state that the subject acquisition proceedings are in the nature of an infrastructure project as defined in section 10- 4 3 a(b) of the said act of 2013, which exempts following the procedure under sections 4 to 8 of chapter ii, thereby rendering the preliminary notification valid and legal is concerned, needless to state that in view of my finding above that the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal and invalid, there is no exemption whatsoever available to the ..... petitioners submits that the impugned notifications are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the said act of 2013 and the said rules (karnataka) of 2015 and the same deserve to be quashed, since the mandatory requirements of rules 21 and 22 of the said rules of 2015 had not been followed by the respondents - state prior to issuing the impugned preliminary notification in addition to the fact that the notification dated 16.05.2020 said to have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... have clearly been inserted, keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the said act of 2013 and so long as the said mandatory requirements contained in chapter-ii have not been exempted by issuing / publishing a duly gazetted gazette notification in the official gazette in accordance with section 10-a of the said act of 2013 (karnataka amendment), any acquisition and a preliminary notification 3 5 issued without following or complying with the said mandatory requirements/procedure would be vitiated, illegal ..... 14.2 insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the state that the subject acquisition proceedings are in the nature of an infrastructure project as defined in section 10- 4 3 a(b) of the said act of 2013, which exempts following the procedure under sections 4 to 8 of chapter ii, thereby rendering the preliminary notification valid and legal is concerned, needless to state that in view of my finding above that the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal and invalid, there is no exemption whatsoever available to the ..... petitioners submits that the impugned notifications are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the said act of 2013 and the said rules (karnataka) of 2015 and the same deserve to be quashed, since the mandatory requirements of rules 21 and 22 of the said rules of 2015 had not been followed by the respondents - state prior to issuing the impugned preliminary notification in addition to the fact that the notification dated 16.05.2020 said to have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka Dharwad
..... have clearly been inserted, keeping in mind the aims and objectives of the said act of 2013 and so long as the said mandatory requirements contained in chapter-ii have not been exempted by issuing / publishing a duly gazetted gazette notification in the official gazette in accordance with section 10-a of the said act of 2013 (karnataka amendment), any acquisition and a preliminary notification 3 5 issued without following or complying with the said mandatory requirements/procedure would be vitiated, illegal ..... 14.2 insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the state that the subject acquisition proceedings are in the nature of an infrastructure project as defined in section 10- 4 3 a(b) of the said act of 2013, which exempts following the procedure under sections 4 to 8 of chapter ii, thereby rendering the preliminary notification valid and legal is concerned, needless to state that in view of my finding above that the impugned notification dated 16.05.2020 is illegal and invalid, there is no exemption whatsoever available to the ..... petitioners submits that the impugned notifications are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the said act of 2013 and the said rules (karnataka) of 2015 and the same deserve to be quashed, since the mandatory requirements of rules 21 and 22 of the said rules of 2015 had not been followed by the respondents - state prior to issuing the impugned preliminary notification in addition to the fact that the notification dated 16.05.2020 said to have .....
Tag this Judgment!