CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 08 KAR CK 0207

Oracle India Private Limited vs State of Karnataka and The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 2 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Suri Appa Rao, J · K.L. Manjunath, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 1552 of 2008 (LA)
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 377 words

Manjunath, J

1.

The legality and correctness of the order passed in WP No. 13706/2007 dated 29.8.2008 is called in question in this appeal. Appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the endorsement issued by R-2 as per Annexure-L wherein it is stated that Sy.No.22/1A and 22/2 have been acquired under Sec.28(4) of KIAD Act. Therefore challenging the endorsement writ petition was filed on the ground that the appellant''s lands were not the subject matter of either the preliminary or the final notification. Learned single Judge along with the aforesaid writ petition clubbed several other writ petitions and a common order is passed rejecting the prayer of the appellant. Therefore, present appeal is filed.

2.

The main contention of Mr. Ramdas, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that the learned single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition without considering the question whether the appellant''s lands viz., Sy.Nos.22/1A and 22/2 were the subject matter of acquisition proceedings as required under Sec. 28(1) & (4) of the Act has wrongly dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, he requests the court to set aside the order and allow the writ appeal.

3.

Having heard the counsel for the appellant and the Govt. Advocate, we notice that on account of clubbing of several writ petitions, learned single Judge did not consider whether the lands of the appellant in Sy.Nos.22/1A and 22/2 of Kadabeesanahalli were the subject matter of preliminary, and final notification as required under Sec 28(4) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as there is no finding on the question of acquisition of the appellant''s property, the order of the learned single Judge has to be set aside and the matter requires to be placed before the learned single Judge with a request to re-consider the case of the appellant on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Registry is directed to place the matter before the learned single Judge with a request to consider the case of the appellant in WP No. 13706/2007 on merits and in accordance with law.

Till the disposal of the matter by the learned single Judge, interim order which is in operation in favour of the appellant shall be in force.