Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-24-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)KarLJ24
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsels for the parties these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order as the lands involved are same and common questions of fact and law are involved.2. By a Notification dated 27-1-2004 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), produced as Annexure-H in W.P. No. 4148 of 2005 and Annexure-A in W.P. No. 1393 of 2005, the State Government declared the following lands of Mahadevapura Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as 'Industrial Area'.-SI. Nos. Sy. Nos. Extent01. 110 03-1502. 112 03-3803. 113:1 00-0704. 113:2 00-0705. 113:3 01-02SI. Nos. Sy. Nos. Extent06. 113:4 00-2307. 114 01-2508. 115 01-3509. 116 01-1410. 126 01-2011. 127 00-20Pursuant to such declaration, Notification dated 4-12-2004, produced as Annexure-B in W.P. No. 4148 of 2005 and Annexure-C in W.P. No. 1393 of 2005, was issued under Section 28(4)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-11-2006
Reported in : 2007(2)KarLJ57
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. The Karnataka Land Developers Association (R) and its members have approached this Court challenging the notifications dated 14.07.2006 vide Annexures-A and B and 15.07.2006 vide Annexure-C issued by the Commissioner, Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (for short 'BMRDA') - respondent No. 1.2. By the impugned notifications the 1st respondent has notified that since it has undertaken the task of preparing Interim Master Plan for Anekal, Hoskote, Kanakapura, Magadi and Nelamangala planning areas coming within its jurisdiction, in the interest of ensuring planned development of the region and in aid of preparing the Interim Master Plan the proposals for conversion of the land use and other proposals under Section 10 of the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') shall be rejected. The petitioners claim that the impugned notifications affect their rights to have their lands converted by approaching the Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-12-2006
Reported in : 2006(5)KarLJ140
ORDERH.V.G. Ramesh, J.1. HRRP 511/2002 arises out of the order passed by the 19th Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC 1506/1997. HRRP 567/1999 arises out of the order passed by the Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore in HRC 1500/1997.2. HRC 1506/1997 was filed by the petitioner landlady seeking for possession of the petition shop premises beating No. 1 comprised in premises No. 283, 7th Cross, 1st Main Road, K N Extension, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 22, for her bonafide use and occupation for commencement of business. According to the petitioner, the petition premises was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- during the year 1970 for the purpose of running a General Stores by the tenant. According to the petitioner, the schedule shop premises and also other shop premises bearing Nos. 2 to 5 comprised in the property bearing No. 283 are adjacent to each other. The petitioner's husband has retired from service and her son has studied BBM and they intend to start a departmental store...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-22-2006
Reported in : 2006(5)KarLJ319
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. The appellant - accused No. 1 is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 342 and 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. The Accused No. 2 who had faced the trial is acquitted.2. The case of the prosecution discloses that PW-1 -victim, was plying the auto belonging to A-1 on hire. There were arrears of Rs. 225/- payable by PW-1 to A-1. On 27.2.97 A-l took away the auto from the house of PW-1. Again A-1 and A-2 re-visited the house of PW-1 at 2.30 p.m. and forcibly took away PW-1 to their shed. He was tied by rope, poured acid on both the hands and was made to be in the shackled state for about two hours. Thereafter release him, PW-1 goes to the house of his brother PW-6. At about 10 p.m. in the night, PW-4 Gangadhar bring PW-1 to his ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-31-2006
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3169
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.1. A. 1 is convicted for an offence punishable Under Section. 87 r/w Section 379 IPC and sentenced to S.I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo SI. for two months. In the charge sheet there are three accused persons.... A.2 and A.3 are absconding and the case against them is split up before the trial Court. A. 1 is tried and convicted.2. The prosecution case discloses that A. 1 was the driver of a private jeep. A.2 and A.3 were the inmates of the jeep. When the forest officials intercepted and checked the jeep, they found 100 Kgs. of sandal wood consisted in 47 rough dressed billets. Under a mahazar, the contraband is seized. The facts of the prosecution case disclose that all the three accused persons shared common intention and were smuggling the sandal wood.3. The charge sheet material discloses that all the accused persons shared common intention and were jointly transporting sandal wood billets. There is a grave lapse o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-19-2006
Reported in : ILR2006KAR1764; 2006(2)KarLJ565
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the endorsement issued on 11-11-2003 and 4-6-2004, vide Annexures-H and J rejecting the request made for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The claim for compassionate appointment is rejected on the ground that as per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'), there is no provision for grant of compassionate appointment to the step children of the deceased.2. Before dealing with the legal point that is canvassed by the Counsel for the petitioner, few facts which will have bearing on the question raised can be referred to.Petitioner is the son of Smt. Janakamma born out of the wedlock between Smt. Janakamma and her first husband. After the death of the father of the petitioner Smt. Janakamma contracted another marriage with one S. Keriyappa on 24-4-1986. This was a registered marriage. It is claimed that at the time ...
Tag this Judgment!