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

1986 Supreme(Kar) 332

MURALIDHARA RAO
RAMEGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


MURLIDHER RAO, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is the owner of wet land S. No. 7/1 ; he claims to be a farmer, with two sons and three daughters. He asserts that in his land there are two mango trees, sixteen fruit bearing coconut trees ; tamarind and other trees. Obviously nothing can be more dearer to him than the land, which is the source of his survival.

( 2 ) ON 6-2-1976, the land was notified for acquisition under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act. Petitioner, rightly and justly objected as his life, belt was being cut off. On 29-3-1976, final notification was issued. Since the petitioner had not been heared, he questioned the same in W. P. 5890 of 1977. W. P. was allowed on 23-6-1980, after quashing the final notification, directions were issued to proceed in accordance with law. The relief, though temporary, was a postponement of the evil day. Respondents, who were in authority and had force mightier than the petitioner, once again issued a final notification ; that was challenged in w. P. 21530 of 1982 ; that Petition was also allowed on 17/19th July 1984. The respondents with a desire to frustrate the petitioner and make his attempts infructuous, appear























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