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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40832

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
SHRI.RAJANNA P – Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OFKARNATAKA – Respondent


CAV ORDER

Both these petitions, call in question, the notification issued by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’ for short) under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short), insofar as the land of these petitioners, as described in the respective petitions.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner Sri Murali Babu M., in W.P.No.10575 of 2025 and Sri Chandan Gowda Patil in W.P.No.8678 of 2025; Smt Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and Sri B B Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondents/KIADB.

3. The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 52/1 respectively of Byradenahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District as observed hereinabove. The lands that have come to the hands of the petitioners have been narrated in the petition, which would not be necessary for consideration of the issue in the lis. The lands in Sy.Nos.67 and 52/1 of Byradenahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk Bangalore Rural District becomes the subjec

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