SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Kar) 380

S.MOHAN, C.SHIVAPPA
BEHROZE RAMYAR BATHA – Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE – Respondent


Advocates:
ASHOK B.PATIL, B.V.ACHARYA RAO, H.B.DATAR, M.H.DATTAR, S.Shivaram, V.H.RON

S. MOHAN, CJ.

( 1 ) ALL these four appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment. They arise out of the judgment of Justice murlidher rao dated 20-7-1987 in W. P. nos. 10881 to 10882/1987 and 10895 and 10896/1987.

( 2 ) WHAT are challenged in these appeals are land acquisition proceedings taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act No. 1 of 1894), (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ).

( 3 ) WE will now proceed to state the facts :lands involved in these four appeals respectively are: sy. No. 139 of kodihalli measuring 1 acre, sy. No. 17 of challaghatta measuring 2 acres 38 guntas + 38 guntas pk, sy. No. 140 of kodihalli measuring 3 acres and sy. No. 144 of kodihalli measuring 1 acre 1 gunta + 1 gunta pk. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the act (preliminary notification) was made on 29-12-1981. That was published in the Karnataka gazette on 7-1-1982. The preamble of the notification requires to be extracted because that evidences the public purpose, and it reads :"whereas it appears to the special deputy commissioner, Bangalore district, that the lands specified in the schedule hereto are likely to be needed for the public purpose to wit, for golf cum hotel r










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top