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

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 21972

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI VIJAY KUMAR R – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


ORDER

1. The land of the petitioner has been sought to be acquired for the purposes of respondent No.3 - Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB). After preliminary notification, objections were called for and it is submitted that the petitioner has filed his objections. It is further submitted that mechanically objection has been over-ruled and land of the petitioner has been acquired by way of a final notification. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Sri.Somashekar.T, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.B.B.Patil, for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the notification issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (for short 'the Act') and order passed under Section 28(3) of the Act, insofar it relates to the land of the petitioner is concerned and the matter may be remanded back to respondent No.4. In the light of his submission, learned Additional Government Advocate has no objection for the same.

Hence, the following:-

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. Notification dated 27.02.2023 bearing No. ¹L 17 J¸ï.¦.PÀÆå (E) 2022 issued under Section 28

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