Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
R.DEVADAS, K.V.ARAVIND
Aaress Iron And Steel Limited, Represented By Its Authorised Signatory, Mr. Hanamant Rao Desai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Department Of Commerce And Industries, Rep. By Its Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.V. ARAVIND, J.
Heard Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Praveen Y. Devareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader along with Sri J.M. Gangadhar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent No.1; Sri Basavaraj V. Sabarad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4; Sri G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent No.3; Sri Suresh S. Shettammanavar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 and 10 to 23; and Sri Veeresh R. Budihal, learned counsel for respondent No.9.
2. This writ petition is filed under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961, seeking to challenge the order passed in Writ Petition No.27387/2016 dated 11.03.2025. Appellant No.1 is the writ petitioner. Appellant No.2 states that the project approved in the name of appellant No.1 has been transferred in its favour by virtue of the Government Order dated 16.01.2024. Consequently, the cause of action in the writ petition, as well as in the present writ appeal, continues in favour of a
Approval conditions for land acquisition must be met to establish vested rights; public interest considerations prevail in land allocation disputes.
Possession without formal allotment does not confer rights; non-compliance with statutory conditions justifies resumption of land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act.
Petitioners cannot assert rights for land allotments when their claims are contingent on another party's pending applications, especially after such approvals have expired.
The acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation Act lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and failure to take possession, rendering subsequent notifications void and constituting....
Court emphasizes the need for the Government to reassess land valuation and public interest in cases of abandoned land acquisition, highlighting that individual claims can satisfy public interest cri....
An argument to contrary blurs boundary lines of schemes of acquisition envisaged under these statutes and thus, runs counter to scope of section 28 of 1966 Act.
Acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements for notice and consideration of objections are not met, emphasizing the necessity of procedural equity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
