Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S.INDIRESH, J
SMT. MARILINGAMMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim ownership and challenge land acquisition notifications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. responsive arguments for enforcing notifications based on possession. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court evaluates the validity of notifications based on possession evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. final ruling quashing notifications due to procedural lapse. (Para 9) |
| 5. emphasizes compliance with acquisition procedures and resulting property rights. (Para 10) |
CORAM:
The petitioners are assailing the notification dated 05.08.1988 (Annexure-C), Final Notification dated 31.08.1989 (Annexure-G) and notification dated 30.04.1999 (Annexure-Q) published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 06.05.1999 and Official Memorandum dated 23.07.1999 (Annexure-Q1) and sought for quashing of all further proceedings in respect of the subject land interalia to declare that acquisition proceedings being lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, Act, 2013).
3. I have heard Sri. K.N.Phanindra, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. B. Ramesh; Sri. Guruswamy K., learned AGA appearing on behalf of r
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
