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

2002 Supreme(Kar) 193

T.S.THAKUR
MOHINI S. HEGDE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
Ashok Menasinakai, Hegde Associates, Tajuddin

TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) IN these petitions for a writ of certiorari, the petitioners assail the validity of a notification issued by the Mangalore Urban Development authority under Section 19 (1) of the Karnataka Urban Development authorities Act, 1987, insofar as the same pertains to the land owned by the petitioners. The challenge arises in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claim to be the owners of different parcels of land in different survey numbers of Village Padavu in Mangalore Taluk of dakshina Kannada District. In terms of a notification issued under Seclion 17 (1) of the Act mentioned above, an area measuring 15 acres and 57 cents in all comprising different survey numbers including those owned by the petitioners was notified for acquisition by the Mangalore urban Development Authority. This was followed by a notification under section 19 (1) of the said Act, the validity whereof was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 26185 to 26192 of 2001 filed earlier. The challenge rested primarily on the plea that the petitioners did not have a reasonable opportunity of filing objections to the preliminary notification thus rendering the final noti















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