High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Hears Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging Land Acquisition Notifications for Upper Tunga Project. Court Examines Challenge to Notifications Issued Under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
  • 135
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

KAHC020009812016_1

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (KAR) (04) 42

W.P. No. 100395/2016 c/w W.P. Nos. 100396/2016, 100398-100399/2016, 100400/2016, 100401-100402/2016, 100403/2016, 100404/2016, 100405/2016, 100408/2016, 100409/2016, 100397/2016, 107653/2015 & 108183/2015, 107663/2015 & 108184-108185/2015, 107662/2015, 107652/2015 & 108071/2015, 109068/2015 & 109497-499/2015, 109069/2015, 109066/2015 & 109507-509/2015, 109067/2015, 109088/2015 (LA-RES)

2016-04-28

B. Veerappa

S.M. Kalwad for petitioners; Madhusudan R. Naik, Advocate General & K. Vidyavati, AGA for respondents 1 to 3; G.K. Hiregoudar for respondents 4 and 5

Shivappa S/o Shankrappa Vadagalla and others

State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, Deputy Commissioner Haveri, Special Land Acquisition Officer Upper Tunga Project, Chief Administrative Officer Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Niyamit, Chief Engineer Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Niyamit

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging land acquisition notifications under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of impugned 4(1) and 6(1) notifications dated various dates, issued by the Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer, in respect of petitioners' lands.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4(1), 6(1)
  • Constitution of India: Article 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Ante-Dating of Appointments for Old Pension Scheme Benefits in Postal Department Case. Petitioners' claim for appointment from earlier dates rejected as they were not appointed against vacancies existing a...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Union and State in Consumer Protection Rules Challenge, Reversing High Court's Striking Down of Qualification and Procedure Provisions. Rules 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c), and 6(9) of Consumer Protection (Qualification for appointment, meth...