Rajamma vs. The State Of Karnataka
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble A.M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble C.T. Ravikumar
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
List On (Date) [16-03-2022]
Listed On:
14 Mar 2022
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) $No(s)$ . 19824/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-03-2016 in WA No. 16453/2011 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
RAMAKRISHNAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Respondent $(s)$
Petitioner(s)
WITH SLP(C) No. 21251/2021 (IV-A) IA No. 8604/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP(C) No. 1689/2022 (IV-A) IA No. 16420/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)
SLP(C) No. 22994-22995/2016 (IV-A)
Date: 14-03-2022 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Hemant Kumar Sagar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv. Mr. Vishal Prasad, AOR Ms. Soumya Priyadarshinee, Adv. Mr. Ankit Ambasta, Adv.
Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Sumit Goel, Adv. Mr. Aditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manu Bajaj, Adv. M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR
Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR
Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv. Mr. Radhakrishna S Hedge, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Prima facie it appears that the decisions pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner(s) in SLP(C) No.22994-22995 of 2016, namely, (2012) 10 SCC 184 and (2007) 9 SCC 304, will be of no avail to the petitioner(s) as the petitioner(s) (through power of attorney holder) had consented to passing of the awards before the land acquisition officer. Having done so, it is not open to such person to then question the acquisition proceedings on specious argument of being fraudulent.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 points out that the husband of the petitioner in SLP(C) No.22994-22995 of 2016, who was the owner at the relevant time had consented for the acquisition and also accepted the compensation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to point out the reported judgment which has interfered with the acquisition process in similar situation.
List these matters on 16th March, 2022.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) COURT MASTER
(VIDYA NEGI) COURT MASTER