The Supreme Court has put its seal of approval to Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authoritys acquisition of 54 acres and 39 guntas of land for a housing project.
A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao set aside a Karnataka High Court judgement.
The court rejected a plea by Shekhargouda Chennabasannagouda Fakirgouda and his legal representatives, who are the residents of Byridevarakoppa village of Hubballi taluk against the acquisition process.
Gouda, represented by advocate Balaji Srinivasan, contended that notice was not issued to him as mandated under the Land Acquisition Act. The counsel claimed the land owners were still in possession of two acres and 36 guntas of land and run a ginning factory with about 40 workers. He also claimed that a cattle shed and a mobile tower also exist on the land in question.
The bench, however, said, "We see no reason to doubt the Panchnama evidencing taking over of possession on September 2, 2005. In addition, the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the gazette. Any attempt made by the first respondent to show that he is still in possession is of no avail."
The court found substance in the submission of senior advocate Basavaprabhu S Patil, appearing for the urban development authority, saying the land was acquired for a housing scheme and the plots have already been allotted.
The land belonging to the Gowdas has been earmarked for civic amenities and no development could take place due to the status quo ordered by the High Court on September 13, 2006, it noted.
![]( "A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao set aside a Karnataka High Court judgement. pti file photo")
The Supreme Court has put its seal of approval to Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority's acquisition of 54 acres and 39 guntas of land for a housing project.
A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao set aside a Karnataka High Court judgement.
The court rejected a plea by Shekhargouda Chennabasannagouda Fakirgouda and his legal representatives, who are the residents of Byridevarakoppa village of Hubballi taluk against the acquisition process.
Gouda, represented by advocate Balaji Srinivasan, contended that notice was not issued to him as mandated under the Land Acquisition Act. The counsel claimed the land owners were still in possession of two acres and 36 guntas of land and run a ginning factory with about 40 workers. He also claimed that a cattle shed and a mobile tower also exist on the land in question.
The bench, however, said, "We see no reason to doubt the Panchnama evidencing taking over of possession on September 2, 2005. In addition, the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the gazette. Any attempt made by the first respondent to show that he is still in possession is of no avail.”
The court found substance in the submission of senior advocate Basavaprabhu S Patil, appearing for the urban development authority, saying the land was acquired for a housing scheme and the plots have already been allotted.
The land belonging to the Gowdas has been earmarked for civic amenities and no development could take place due to the status quo ordered by the High Court on September 13, 2006, it noted.
A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao set aside a Karnataka High Court judgement.
The court rejected a plea by Shekhargouda Chennabasannagouda Fakirgouda and his legal representatives, who are the residents of Byridevarakoppa village of Hubballi taluk against the acquisition process.
Gouda, represented by advocate Balaji Srinivasan, contended that notice was not issued to him as mandated under the Land Acquisition Act. The counsel claimed the land owners were still in possession of two acres and 36 guntas of land and run a ginning factory with about 40 workers. He also claimed that a cattle shed and a mobile tower also exist on the land in question.
The bench, however, said, "We see no reason to doubt the Panchnama evidencing taking over of possession on September 2, 2005. In addition, the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the gazette. Any attempt made by the first respondent to show that he is still in possession is of no avail."
The court found substance in the submission of senior advocate Basavaprabhu S Patil, appearing for the urban development authority, saying the land was acquired for a housing scheme and the plots have already been allotted.
The land belonging to the Gowdas has been earmarked for civic amenities and no development could take place due to the status quo ordered by the High Court on September 13, 2006, it noted.
The Supreme Court has put its seal of approval to Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority's acquisition of 54 acres and 39 guntas of land for a housing project.A bench of Justices Anil R Dave and L Nageswara Rao set aside a Karnataka High Court judgement.
The court rejected a plea by Shekhargouda Chennabasannagouda Fakirgouda and his legal representatives, who are the residents of Byridevarakoppa village of Hubballi taluk against the acquisition process.
Gouda, represented by advocate Balaji Srinivasan, contended that notice was not issued to him as mandated under the Land Acquisition Act. The counsel claimed the land owners were still in possession of two acres and 36 guntas of land and run a ginning factory with about 40 workers. He also claimed that a cattle shed and a mobile tower also exist on the land in question.
The bench, however, said, "We see no reason to doubt the Panchnama evidencing taking over of possession on September 2, 2005. In addition, the notification under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the gazette. Any attempt made by the first respondent to show that he is still in possession is of no avail.”
The court found substance in the submission of senior advocate Basavaprabhu S Patil, appearing for the urban development authority, saying the land was acquired for a housing scheme and the plots have already been allotted.
The land belonging to the Gowdas has been earmarked for civic amenities and no development could take place due to the status quo ordered by the High Court on September 13, 2006, it noted.