Contract Killings and Punishment

Anybody could be a hired killer in Delhi, say police; they are ready to pull the trigger for as low as Rs 40,000.

A mother of seven, a science graduate, a property dealer and a man looking for a job — the profiles of Delhi’s contract killers are diverse. For as little as Rs 40,000, some of these dreaded murderers for hire can fire a gun or wield a knife.

At least 50 contract killing cases were solved by the Delhi police in 2017. Not all of the accused had previous criminal records — some were first-time offenders with dreams of becoming rich overnight.

Former Delhi commissioner Ved Marwah said that though the phenomenon of professionals taking money to kill is spread across the world. “Contract killers are professionals and are everywhere in the world. But first-timers indulging in such crimes shows degeneration of social values. We have to strengthen the criminal justice system, raise the threshold of social behaviour and maintain higher standards.”

Source:  .hindustantimes.

Contract killings have not been alien to Delhiites but what is startling is the fact that they are no longer executed to simply settle scores in business or political rivalries but have even crept into family issues. 

A senior Gurgaon police official believes that over time contract killers have also become “sophisticated and smart.”

“They are no longer the rustic gangs from UP villages who usually worked under the patronage of some local politician or businessman. With landowners from Delhi’s fringe villages striking gold with the property boom, sufficient money has been pumped into these areas to fulfill the fancy for foreign-made guns. This explains the proliferation of guns in the NCR,” said the official.

Source: DNA

The Madras High Court Bench confirmed life sentence imposed on five contract killers, and speaking through the Division Bench of Justices A. Selvam and T. Mathivanan held :

“However high or wise a person is, when he happens to commit a crime against morality, he would certainly, in a flustered state, leave a mark of vestige. This is the archaism and that is what has happened in this case.” 

Source: the Hindu

Punishment:

The punishment for murder under India’s Penal Code is life imprisonment or death and the person is also liable to a fine.[16] 

Guidance on the application of the death sentence was provided by the Supreme Court of India in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court enunciated an approach of balancing mitigating and aggravating factors of the crime when deciding on the imposition of capital punishment.[17]  However, this approach was called into question first in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab where the Court emphasized that since an amendment was made to India’s Code of Criminal Procedure, the rule has changed so that “the offence of murder shall be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment.  The court can depart from that rule and impose the sentence of death only if there are special reasons for doing so.”[18]  The Court also emphasized that due consideration should not only be given to the circumstances of the crime but to the criminal also.[19] 

However, more recently the Court in Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, noted that the approach in Bachan has not been fully adopted subsequently,[20] that “primacy still seems to be given to the nature of the crime,” and that the “circumstances of the criminal, referred to in Bachan Singh appear to have taken a bit of a back seat in the sentencing process.”[21] The Court in Sangeet concluded as follows:

This Court has not endorsed the approach of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in [the 1971 case of] Bachan Singh.  However, this approach has been adopted in several decisions.  This needs a fresh look.  In any event, there is little or no uniformity in the application of this approach.

Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime while mitigating circumstances relate to the criminal.  A balance sheet cannot be drawn up for comparing the two.  The considerations for both are distinct and unrelated.  The use of the mantra of aggravating and mitigating circumstances needs a review.

In the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal are equally important. We have, unfortunately, not taken the sentencing process as seriously as it should be with the result that in capital offences, it has become judge-centric sentencing rather than principled sentencing.

The Constitution Bench of this Court has not encouraged standardization and categorization of crimes and even otherwise it is not possible to standardize and categorize all crimes.

The grant of remissions is statutory.  However, to prevent its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some procedural and substantive checks in the statute.  These need to be faithfully enforced.[22]

Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/india.php

After looking at the judgments of various cases, in my opinion, section 307 IPC is very confusing in so far as the basis of the conviction of accused is concerned. There is a common ingredient which is required for the conviction under this section and that element is intention along with the knowledge and the implication of the act done. All the courts across the board agree on the fact that the intention to commit murder and the preparation for the act must be present. However the element where the courts differ with each other is the matter of proving the intention.

The difference being that courts say that to prove the intention of the accused, the nature of the injury, the nature of the weapon used, preparation taken are taken into account however surprisingly the courts arrive at different conclusions regarding these facts. That is in some cases the courts have ruled that even if the weapon used was dangerous but caused a simple wound, there would be no conviction under section 307 and in another case the court rules that even if no injury is caused the accused can be convicted if intention to kill is proved. This is contradictory in nature. In one case the court also ruled that forced starvation can also be convicted under section 307.

The questioning of the constitutional validity of this section was a legitimate question which was solved by a very simple answer by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The main conclusion is that there is no hard and fast rule about the methodology of proving the intention of the accused, that may vary from case to case and it is the judge’s responsibility to take cognizance of the facts before him and decide on the intention of the accused and it is the intention which matters the most in conviction.

The nature of the injuries, weapons used are merely clues that the judiciary uses to reach to a conclusion about the intention of the accused. So it can be safely said that even of no injury is caused a person can be convicted under this section.

Source: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/attempt-murder-section-307-ipc/

What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills? - Judgment Reading

In the leading case H. Venkatachala Iyengar v B.N. Tkimma-jamma, the Supreme Court has stated the manner and nature of proof required to prove a Will and the solemnity attached to the same which is as follows:

"What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills? It is well known that the proof of Wills presents a recurring topic for decision in Courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68, Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a Court of Law. Similarly, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by Will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Wilt or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. This section also requires that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the Will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last Will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the Will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will? Did he put his signature to the Will knowing what it contained"? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of Wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.

However, there is one important feature which distinguishes Wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the Will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his Will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last Will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of Wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free Will. Ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated".

10. Thus the principle that is evolved by the Supreme Court in short is that "where circumstances exist which excite suspicion of the Court, the propounder has to remove such suspicion and prove affirmatively that the testator knew and approved the contents of the documents". But what are suspicious circumstances is difficult to illustrate exhaustively. It depends upon facts of each case. Broadly stated some of the prominent ones indicated by the Court in the said decision being "signature is doubtful, condition of the mind is very feeble and debilitated, the disposition made in the Will is very unnatural, unfair, improbable in the light of relevant circumstances". In a later decision in Smt. Indu Bala and Others v Manindra Chandra Bose and Another, the principles of Venkataehala's case, supra, has been reiterated and some of suspicious circumstances has been illustrated in a little more detail viz., "The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the disposition made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair, in the light of relevant circumstances". The Court has however sounded a word of caution by stating "Needless to say that any and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance. A circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal as is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person". Again in PPK Gopalan Nambiar v PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar and Others, it has been stated in order that the circumstances can be stated to be suspicious which should be removed by the propounder of the Will, it has stated "It is trite, that it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the Will add remove all suspected features. But there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind".

Thus what emerges from a reading of Section 59 of Indian Succession Act. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act; and the decisions referred to above is: That when a Will is sought to be probated by the propounder, and is charged or attacked by the caveator, the initial burden is on the propounder of the Will first to prove the Will by establishing that the executor or executrix as the case may be was not a minor, was of sound mind knew the contents and signed the Will in the presence and at least by two witnesses, and at least one of the attesting witness has to be examined as provided under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and then remove from the mind of Court every circumstance of legitimate suspicion which is found to exist; but the suspicious circumstances must be real, germane to the case, but the approach to the question cannot be in the often quoted passage by the Supreme Court of Lord-da-pareq in Harmes v Hinksan:

"Where a Will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to truth".

One other important factor that has also to be kept in mind is that Courts should also guard in not over emphasizing circumstances which may look suspicious (though on a closer look it may not be red) which may result in frustrating the 'intention of the testator'.

After the propounder removes the legitimate suspicion circumstances if any then the burden shifts on the person attacking the Will on any grounds viz., fraud, undue influence, coercion, mistake etc., which burden he has to discharge by proper plea and proof.

Source: Karnataka High Court in Krishnabai vs Maheshwar on 10 December, 1998

Equivalent citations: ILR 1999 KAR 1038, 1999 (6) KarLJ 357Bench: Justice H Rangavittalachar

No absolute right to seek Regularisation of Contract Workers - says Kar HC

Contractual workers do not have a right to seek regularisation or absorption, the High Court has said, dismissing the petition by 205 taluk nodal officers of the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited, a company under the Housing Department of Karnataka.

In November 2015, the Corporation issued relieving letters to the existing nodal officers and a new order of contract. These were challenged by the officers who were relieved from service.

Justice Raghvendra S Chauhan gave his judgement recently. The question answered by the judgement was whether the TNOs "can claim the right to be absorbed or regularised in the service of the corporation or not?".

These TNOs were appointed on contractual basis for a period of two years from 2011. They continued in service for six years and approached the court when the corporation decided to review the works of TNOs and enter into a fresh contract by imposing fresh conditions. The existing TNOs were to be relieved before this process.

Dismissing the petition, the HC said,

"From day one, they were very well aware of the fact that their appointment was a temporary one; with the efflux of time, the appointment would come to an end. Merely because their services were continued for a further period of six years, would not, and does not, change the nature of their appointment from temporary appointment to quasi-permanent one. Such continuation neither creates a legitimate expectation of being absorbed or regularised by the government, nor bestows equity in their favour."

Source:  http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/Contract-workers-need-not-be-regularised-Karnataka-High-Court/articleshow/60987389.cms

New Cheque Dishonour Amendment Explained - Gujarat HC - Times of India

In an important order in a cheque bouncing case, Gujarat high court has explained and clarified the new law regarding jurisdiction of courts in such matters and where an aggrieved party can file a complaint.

In this case, the petition was filed by a resident of Uttar Pradesh after an Ahmedabad-based firm moved the Ahmedabad metropolitan court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a dishonoured cheque. The cheque was issued in Badalpur, UP, and deposited in a bank in Gorakhpur, UP. When the cheque was dishonoured due to inadequate balance, the payee filed a complaint in Ahmedabad.

The UP resident questioned the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad court on the ground that the cheque was issued in UP and delivered in UP. No action in the matter had taken place in Ahmedabad. On the other hand, the Ahmedabad-based firm argued that the complaint was maintainable because the company had its bank account in Ahmedabad.

Justice J B Pardiwala rejected the UP resident's contention and gave a clarification on the amended law. The court made it clear that "when the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the complaint is to be filed before the court where the branch of the bank is situated, where the payee or the holder in due course maintains his account and, secondly, when the cheque is presented for payment over the counter, the complaint is to be filed before the court where the drawer maintains his account."

The issue has a curious history. In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that cheque return cases can be filed in a court where the issuer (drawer) maintains his account. This resulted in shifting of lakhs of cases from one town to the other and caused complainants difficulties.

To put an end to the payee's troubles, the President promulgated the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance in June 2015. This provided that the complaint can be filed in a court where the payee maintains his bank account. While the amended law takes care of interest of the payee of the cheque, it also tries to ensure that drawer of multiple chequess is not harassed by payees filing different complaints at different places. In such a case, all complaints should be filed in the court where the first case was lodged.

Source -http://m.timesofindia.com/city/ahmedabad/High-Court-explains-new-cheque-bounce-law/articleshow/51751606.cms

Misuse of Law by a Educationally well Qualifed to claim Alimony Deprecated!

The Mumbai family court has pulled up a highly qualified woman for seeking maintenance from her estranged husband.

The court, presided over by principal judge Dr Laxmi Rao, said that the woman was trying to take undue advantage of the law and using it as a shield against her husband.
Its six-page order, given out recently, said that women cannot sit idle and expect money from former partners.

The woman in question was highly qualified, had pursued her MBA, and was working with a private firm as a human resource personnel.

 In 2014, she approached the court seeking a permanent monthly alimony of Rs 25,000 and an equivalent amount of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The woman claimed that she was forced to leave her job.

Her argument was that since she was not working and was dependent on her parents and her brother, she was bound to get maintenance.

Her husband, who was an engineer, earning a monthly salary of Rs 25,000, opposed her claim. He claimed that the woman deserted him in 2012, filed for divorce in 2013 and approached the court for maintenance in 2014.

For two years, she sat idle, despite being highly qualified, and this was not acceptable, he said.

The Court relied on a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in 2000, which had pulled up a woman, who, in spite of being efficient enough, had sought maintenance.

The Mumbai family court judge said: "According to me, Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself or herself. If the spouse is well qualified, s/he is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out the other... The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons, who, by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversary by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose," the court said.

"A lady who is fighting matrimonial petition filed for divorce cannot be permitted to sit idle and put her burden on the husband for demanding pendentelite alimony from him during the pendency of such petition. Section 24 is not meant for creating an army of such idle persons who would be sitting idle waiting for a 'dole', to be awarded by her husband who has got a grievance against her and who has gone to the court seeking relief against her," concluded the order.

Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-don-t-misuse-law-to-squeeze-out-estranged-huband-court-to-woman-2091027

Karnataka HC Order in MFA filed u/s 54(1) of LAQAct against Kumta Civil Judge Sr Divn Order in LAC no.234-2006

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/92775804/

Karnataka High Court
The Spl. Land Acquisition ... vs Ganu Pattu Padti, on 3 July, 2012
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OFJULY, 2012

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

M.F.A. NO. 24194/2011 (LAC) A/W.

M.F.A. Nos. 24195/2011, 24310/2011, 24407/2011, 24460/2011, 24479/2011, 24648/2011, 24661/2011, 24669/2011, 24906/2011, 24907/2011, 25399/2011, 25442/2011, 25484/2011, 25490/2011, 25591/2011, 25719/2011, 20367/2012, 20386/20 12. 20390/2012. 20412/2012. 20413/2012, 2O566/2012, 20569/2012, 2 1219/2012, 22376/2012, 22430/2012, 22431/2012, 22462/2012 & 22889/2009

IN M.F.A. NO. 24194/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD,

NAVAL BASE, KARWAR,

.APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. GANU PATTU PADTI, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 1A. SMT. TAHKI W/O GANU PADI, AGE: 50 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/O MELINAKERI, NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, MUDGA, AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

lB. SMT, SEETA ( BEJARI W/O UDAY NAGEKAR,

AGE: 27 YEARS,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O C/0 UDAY MAHABALESHWAR NAGEKAR, BAGINKATTA, TQ. YELLAPUR.

1C. SANTOSH 5/0 GANU PADI AGE: 25 YEARS,

NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, MUDGA, AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

1D. KUMARI ASHA D/0 GANU ADTI, AGE: 23 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHODL, R/O NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE, MUDGA, AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

2. KHEMU PUTI'U PADTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

PARVATI W/0 KHEMU PADTI, SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

2A. SMT, MANGALA

W/0 GURUNATH PADTI KANKONAKAR, AGE: 32 YEARS, CCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/0 MUDGA, AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

2B. PREMA D/OKHEMU PADTI AGE: 28 YEARS,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/0 MUDGA, AMADALLI, 3

TQ. KARWAR.

2C. MURU LIDHAR S/O KHEMU PADTI AGE: 19 YEARS,

R/O MUDGA, AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:22.12.2006, PASSED IN LAC NO.186/1994, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE[SR.DN.j, KARWAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO. 24195/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

HUVA @ VENKATESH RAMA NAYAK, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

1. SUBBI W/O HUVA@VENKATESH RAMA NAYAK, AGE: 70 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURIST.

2. RAMADAS S/O HUVA VENKATESH RAMA NAYAK, AGE: 45 YEARS,

0CC: AGRICULTURIST.

3. GOVINDS/OHUVA

4

@ VENKATESH RAMA NAYAK, AGE: 40 YEARS, 0CC: TEACHER.

Ri TO R3 ARE R/O. BHAVIKERI, TQ. ANKOLA.

4. DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & OOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE--42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:24.10.2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.246/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F,A. NO. 24310/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR. DIST: KARWAR, APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

VENKATARAY RAMA NAYAK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.S,

1. SMT. RAJANI W/O. VENKATARAY NAYAK, AGE: ABOUT 55 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVIKERT, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

2. SOMA VENKATARAY NAYAK, AGE: ABOUT 31 YEARS, 0CC: PVT., SERVICE,

R/0: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

3. RAJESH VENKATARAY NAYAK, AGE: ABOUT 30 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURIST,

R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

4. VANI D/0. VENKATARAY NAYAK, AGE: ABOUT 27 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHAVJKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

5. HANAMU KOM KALLU NAYAK, R/0: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR,

6. SHARADA KOM. GOVIND NAYAK, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

7. GIRIYAMMA KOM. NEELKANTH NAYAK, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

8. DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42,

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:22.12,2009, PASSED IN LAC NO.172/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE [SR.DN.1. KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 11,500/ PER GUNTA. -

6

IN M.F.A. NO.24407/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.) AND

SRI. GIDIYA HEDDU GOUDA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1. SRI. BHANU GIDIYA GIRIYA @ LINGA GOUDA

R/O TODUR, PALEKARWADA, KARWAR.

2. SMT. SAVITRI W/O SESHU GOUDA 0CC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O HARWADA, TQ. ANKOLA.

3. SMT. TIMMI W/O VENKA GOUDA 0CC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O TODUR, PALEKARWADA, TQ. KARWAR.

2. SMT. LEKHI W/O ROHIDAS GOUDA, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O IRAGI, MALLAPUR, TQ. KARWAR.

3. SMT. LEELA W/O SANTOSH GOUDA, CCC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O PALEKARWADA, TODUR, TQ. KARWAR.

4. SRI. DURGADAS S/O GIDIYA 7

@ GIRIYA LINGA GOUDA, 0CC: COOLIE,

R/O PALEKARWADA, TODUR, TQ. KARWAR.

5. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:25.02.2009, PASSED IN LAC NO.41/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE ADD. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KARWAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.17,800/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.24460/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR. ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. HANUMANT NARAYANA ACHARI, AGE: 58 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O BHAVIKERI, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST. UTT'AR KANNADA.

2. DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42. ... RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:13.10.2009, PASSED IN LAC NO.195/2006, ON THE 8

FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SRDN.) KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO24479/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR. APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.) AND

I. SUSHILA W/O BOMMAYYA NAIK R/O BONUNAMANE,

R/O TOPPADAKERI,

BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

2. SANNAPPA S/O BEERAPPA NAYAK R/O BONUNAMANE,

R/O TOPPADAKERI,

BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

3. RAMACHANDRA BEERAPPA NAIK R/O BONUNAMANE,

R/O TOPPADAKERI,

BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

4. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-2.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:29.02.2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.106/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA. 9

IN M.F.A. NO.24648/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT, NAVAL EASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. BANTA RAMA GOUDA R/O BADAGERI, BHAVIKATT'I, TQ. ANKOLA.

2. RAKU DEVU GOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

2A. DEVU S/0 RAKU GOUDA, AGE: 60 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BADAGERI, ALAGERI, ANKOLA.

3. BUDDUDEVUGOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

3A. SURESH BUDDU GOUDA, AGE: 30 YEARS,

0CC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O BADAGERI, ALAGERI, ANKOLA.

4. SHIVU SANKUSA GOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

GANGA SANKUSA GOUDA

R/O BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA. 10

5. TULASU,

REP. BY MINOR GUARDIAN NAGAMMA HEDDU GOUDA

R/O BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

6. ASHAHEDDUGOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR,

6A. DEVAMMA W/O ASHA GOUDA AGE: 35 YEARS,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/O BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

6B. BABU S/O ASHA GOUDA AGE: 17 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT.

6C. PRADEEP S/O ASHA GOUDA AGE: 15 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT.

6D. VISHWANATH S/O ASHA GOUDA AGE: 13 YEARS, 0CC: STUDENT.

R6(b) to R6(d) ARE MINORS, REP. BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND & GUARDIAN MOTHER

SMT. DEVAMMA W/0. LATE ASHA GOUDA.

ALL ARE R/0 BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

7. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:28.05.2009, PASSED IN LAC NO.191/2006, ON THE II

FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.24661/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SEA BIRD PROJECT-TI, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

HAMMANNA CHIPA NAIK

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR

1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O GANAPATI NAYAK AGE: 45 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

2. HOSABU CHIPA NAIK AGE: MAJOR, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

3. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER KARNATAKA GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:30-08-2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.117/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) KUMTA, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/-PER GUNTA. 12

INt1RA,NO.24669/201

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT, SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR. ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A,)

AND

BHANU MADA GOWDA,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.

I. SOMI BHANU GOUDA, AGE: 65 YEARS,

R/O BHAJANKERI,

AMADALLI VILLAGE,

KARWAR TALUK.

2. SMT. OMI NINGA GOUDA, AGE: 49 YEARS,

R/O BHAJANKERI,

AMADALLI VILLAGE,

KARWAR TALUK.

3. GOVIND BHANU GOUDA, AGE: 45 YEARS,

R/O BHAJANKERI,

AMADALLI VILLAGE,

KARWAR TALUK.

4. SMT. VISHNU BHANU GOUDA, AGE: 39 YEARS,

R/O BHAJANKERI,

AMADALLI VILLAGE,

KARWAR TALUK.

13

5. DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:28-08-2006, PASSED IN LAC NO.25/1993, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) KARWAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1 1,500/-PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.24906/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD NAVAL BASE PROJECT, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1, TARA SIDU NAIK.

2. SRI. MITA RITA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

SMT. RADHA MITA NAIK, AGE: 67 YEARS, R/O AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

3. MEERA GANAPATI NAIK AGE: 47 YEARS,

R/O AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR. Li

14

4. SUMA VISHNU NAIK AGE: 41 YEARS,

R/O AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR,

5. SMT. GRIPA GANGADHAR NAIK AGE: 34 YEARS,

R/O AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

6. SMT. DEEPA DATTA NAIK AGE: 44 YEARS,

R/O AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

7. SMT. DIVYA THOKU NAIK AGE: 32 YEARS,

R/O AMADALLI, TQ. KARWAR.

8. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, DR. K KAMARAJ ROAD,

BANGALORE.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:22-06-2010, PASSED IN LAC NO.14/2009, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) KARWAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 11,500/-PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.24907/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD NAVAL BASE PROJECT, KARWAR. APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

15

1. ANANT S/0 RAKU NAIK, R/O BHAVIKATh, TQ. ANKOLA,

1A. SMT. PARVATI W/O ANANT NAIK AGE: 73 YEARS, OCCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O BHAVIKATTI, TQ. ANKOLA.

lB. SRI. JAYARAM 5/0 ANANT NAIK AGE: 52 YEARS,

R/O BHAVIKATPI, TQ. ANKOLA.

1C. SRI. GIRISH S/O ANANT NAIK AGE: 37 YEARS,

R/O BHAVIKAYTI, TQ. ANKOLA.

2. UDDANDA S/O RAKU NAIK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

2A. RAJARAM S/O UDDANDA NAIK AGE: 53 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BHAVIKERI, TQ. ANKOLA.

2B. SATISH S/0 UDDANDA NAIK AGE: 50 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O BHAVIKERI, TQ. ANKOLA.

2C. JAGADISH S/O UDDANDA NAIK AGE: 48 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/0 BHAVIKERI, TQ. ANKOLA.

3. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA GOA CIRCLE, BANGALO RE.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS PILED U/S.54(l) OP LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:22-09-2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.144/2009, ON THE

J

16

FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) KUMTA, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/-PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.25399/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT II,-

NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. RAMACHANDRA TIMMANNA NAYAK.

1(A) RAMACHANDRA TIMMANNA NAYAK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.

SMT. SANNAMMA

W/O.RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD,

R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: NORTH KANARA.

1(B). GOPAL RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHAVIKERI,

TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: NORTH CANARA.

1(C) GOURISH RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHAVIKERI,

TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: NORTH CANARA.

1(D) GOVIND RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BHAVIKERI,

i7

TQ: ANKOLA, N.K. DIST.

1(E) RAJAMMA D/O. RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: SERVICE, R/O: BHAVIKERI,

TQ: ANKOLA, N.K. DIST.

1(F) REVATI D/O, RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: SERVICE, R/O: BHAVIKERI,

TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

1(G) PREMA D/0, RAMACHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: SERVICE, R/O: BHAVIKERI,

TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: KARWAR.

2. TIMMANNA BOMMAYYA NAIK, R/O: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

3. SATU BOMMAYYA NAIK, R/0: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

4. BEERANNA BOMMAYYA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.S.

4(A) MANGALA D/0. BEERANNA NAIK, AGE: MAJOR,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O: ALAGERI, ANKOLA.

4(B) RAJU S/0. BEERANNA NAIK, AGE: MAJOR,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O: ALAGERI, ANKOLA.

5. NARAYAN BOMMAYYA NAIK, R/O: BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA. r(L

18

6. MANI BOMMAYYA NAIK, R/O: BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

7. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA GOA CIRCLE, BANGALO RE.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:28-05-2010, PASSED IN LAC NO.82/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SRDN) KUMTA, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/-PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.25442/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SEA BIRD PROJECT, NOW INDIAN NAVY, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA , KARWAR. APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. CHANDRAKANT S/O PANDU NAIK AGE: 55 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MUDGA, MADALLI, KARWAR.

2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, T-56, ASSAYALINE KAMARAJ ROAD, BANGALORE-42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:27-06-2011, PASSED IN LAC NO.05/2011, ON THE 19

FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) KARWAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 1 1,500/-PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.25484/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT II,-

NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. RAMANAND RAGHUPATHI SHENVI, R/O: CHENDIYA, KARWAR.

PRESENT ADDRESS:

NO. 4, GURUKRUPA LIBERTY CO.OP. HOUSING SOCIETY, LIBERTY GARDEN CROSS ROAD, NO.4, MALAD (WEST),

BOMBAY 400 064.

-

2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE.

RESPONDENTS

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC. 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE REFERENCE COURT I.E., ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KUMTA, IN L.A.C. NO. 280/1994 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) KARWAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/-PER GUNTA. 20

IN M.F.A. NO.25490/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD, KARWAR DIST. APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. U. F. M. GOVID S/0 KHEMI GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, RYOT R/O KODAR, NOWT AT SEA BIRD COLONY, TODUR, KARWAR DIST.

2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.12.2010 PASSED IN L.A.C. NO.114/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), KARWAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.25591/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.) j

21

AND

1. SRI YOKU NAGU GOUDA R/O:BADAGERI BHAVIEKRI, TQ:ANKOLA.

2. SRI BECCHU NINGU GOUDA R/O:BADAGERI BHAVIEKRI, TQ:ANKOLA.

3. SRI KAMANNA S/O DEVU GOUDA R/O:BADAGERI BHAVIEKRI, TQ:ANKOLA.

4, SRI CHANNA DEVU GOUDA, R/O:BADAGERI BHAVIEKRI, TQ :ANKOLA.

5. SRI TAKKU DEVI GOUDA, R/O:BADAGERI BHAVIEKRI, TQ:ANKOLA.

6. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC. 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.03.2009 PASSED IN L.A.C. NO.192/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), KUMTA, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.25719/2011:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT, KARWAR. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.) 22

AND

1. BABU SINDYA GUNAGI AGE: MAJOR, L.R OF SINDHYA SOMU GUNAGI RIO. GUNAGIWADA, ARGA, KARWAR.

2. BHASKAR SINDYA GUNAGI AGE: MAJOR,

R/O. ARGA, KARWAR.

3. MIRYA SINDYA GUNAGI AGE: MAJOR,

RIO. ARGA, KARWAR.

4. RUKMANGADA SINDYA GUNAGI AGE: MAJOR,

R/O. ARGA, KARWAR.

5. GEETA SADANAND GUNAGI.

6. HEMILA S/O. SINDYA GUNAGI AGE: MAJOR,

R/O. ARGA, KARWAR.

7. D.E.O. KAMARAJ ROAD, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:24-06-2011, PASSED IN LAC NO.19/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) KARWAR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/-PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.20367/20 12:

BETWEEN

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT,

23

NOW INDIAN NEW,

MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, M.G.ROAD, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

LAKSHU VASU GOUDA,

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1. SMT. GOURI KOM LAKSHU GOUDA, AGE: 68 YEARS, 0CC: RYOT, R,'O: ANIGADDA, TQ: ANKOLA.

2. GANAPATHI S/O. LAKSHU GOUDA, AGE: 48 YEARS, RYOT, R/O: ANGIGADDA, TQ: ANKOLA.

3. HADU S/O. LAKSHU GOUDA, AGE: 40 YEARS, RYOT, R/O: ANIGADDA, TQ: ANKOLA.

4. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, K & G CIRCLE, T-56, ASSAYALINE, KAMRAJ ROAD, BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:01.04.2011, PASSED IN LAC NO.1/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KARWAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS, 11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.20386/2012:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD,

NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

MOTAMOTA THEKU NAIK

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

I. SMT. TALASI W/O. MOTA NAIK AGE: 62 YEARS.

0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

RIO. OPP. MAHASATI KALYAN MANTAP, KAJUBAG, KARWAR.

2. SMT. SUMANA D/O. MOTA NAIK W/O. RAMAKANT NAIK

AGE: 42 YEARS.

0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/O. OPP. MAHASATI KALYAN MANTAP, KAJUBAG, KARWAR.

3. SMT. PRABRAVATI D/O. MOTA NAIK W/O. THAKU NAIK

0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/O. OPP. MAHASATI KALYAN MANTAP, KAJUBAG, KARWAR.

4. KRISHNA THAKU NAIK RIO. ALIGADDA, CHENDIYA TQ: KARWAR.

5. SHANTARAM THEKU NAIK RIO. ALIGADDA, CHENDIYA TQ: KARWAR.

6. DAMODAR THEKU NAIK R/O. ALIGADDA, CHENDIYA 25

TQ: KARWAR,

7. NAVARAJ THEKU NAIK R/0. ALIGADDA, CHENDIYA TQ: KARWAR.

THAKU BUDDU NAIK

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

8. JAYA S/O. THANKU NAIK AGE: 65 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/0. KALISHITI'A, BAAD, KARWAR.

9. ANAND S/O. ACHYUT NAIK AGE: 30 YEARS, 0CC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O. KALISHI'ITA, BAAD, KARWAR.

10. DiVfl'ARAM S/0. THAKU NAIK AGE: 44 YEARS,

0CC: BUS CONDUCTOR,

R/0. KALISHITTA, BAAD, KARWAR.

11. HEMANAND S/0. THANKU NAIK AGE: 35 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, RIO. TODUR COLONY,

KARWAR.

12. SMT. VEKAMMA KOM VITTAL NAIK AGE: 58 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/0. KALISHITTA, BAAD, KARWAR.

13. SMT. MEERA @ KALPANA W/0. SHIVANAND NAIK

AGE: 55 YEARS,

R/0. KOMARPATWADA, KODIBAG, KARWAR.

fr&

26

14. SMT. MEGHABAI ( GUNAVANTI W/0. RATNAKAR NAIK

AGE: 52 YEARS,

R/O. NEAR GINDI TEMPLE, KODIBAG, KARWAR.

15. SMT. LEELA SYAMALA SARVO'Il'AM NAIK AGE: 42 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HARAWADA, TQ: ANKOLA, KARWAR,

16. SMT. TOMARI @. ROOPA W/O. HARISCHANDRA NAIK R/AT. CIVIL HOSPITAL QUARTERS, M.G. ROAD, KARWAR.

17. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:28.02.2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.133/1991, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KARWAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1 1,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.20390/2012:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT,

NOW INDIAN NEW,

MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, M.G.ROAD, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.) 27

AND

I. BOLA TIMMA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, RYOL, R/O. KODAR NOW AT SEA BIRD COLONY, TODUR, TQ : KARWAR.

2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER K & G CIRCLE, T-56, ASSAYALINC, KAMARAJ ROAD, BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:01.04.2011, PASSED IN LAC NO.2/2010, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KARWAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.20412/2012:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACUQISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT,

NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

• BANTA RAM GOUDA MINOR, REPTED. BY FATHER RAMA BANTA GOUDA,

R/O. BADAGERI, BHAVIKAERI, ANKOLA.

28

RAKU DEVA GOUDA,

R/O. BADAGERI,

BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

2. DEVU RAKU GOUDA AGE: 60 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE RIO. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

BUDDU DEVU GOUDA

R/0. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS

3. SURESH BUDDU GOUDA AGE: 30 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE R/0. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

4. KESHAV SANNAKUS GOUDA R/0. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

5. TULASU HEDDU GOUDA R/O. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

6. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(l) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:29.11.2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.142/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA. frt

29

IN M.F.A. NO.20413/2012:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT,

NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A,)

AND

HANUMANT S/O. GOVIND NAIK SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

1. SARASWATT W/O. NAGAPPA NAIK AGE: 70 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD R/0. SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTI'AR KANNADA.

2. NINGAPPA 5/0. HANUMANT NAIK AGE: 73 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

3. PUNDALIK S/0. HANUMANT NAIK AGE: 68 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTT'AR KANNADA.

4. SHRIKANT S/O. HANUMANT NAIK AGE: 57 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTI'AR KANNADA.

5. MAHADEVI W/0. SUKRU NAIK, U.F.M. AGE: 55 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. SAKALBENA, AVERSA, 30

TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: U11'AR KANNADA.

6. SUBHADRI SANDHYA D/O. HANUMANT NAIK

AGE: 53 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD RIO. SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTI'AR KANNADA.

7. ANANDI D/O. HANUMANT NAIK AGE: 60 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD R/O. SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

8. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA @ GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:16.09.2009, PASSED IN LAC NO.234/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KUMTA AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.20566/2012:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACUQISITION OFFICER SEA BIRD PROJECT, NOW INDIAN NAVY, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KARWAR. APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. PREMA @ PREMABAI CAHNDRAKANT NAIK AGE: 45 YEARS, CCC: AGRICULTURE, 31

R/O. MUDAGA, AMADALLI, KARWAR.

2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, T-56, ASSAYALINGA KUMARAJ ROAD, BANGALORE-42. RESPONDENTS ...

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:27.06.2011, PASSED IN LAC NO.11/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KARWAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1 1,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.20569/2012:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT,

NAVAL BASE, KARWAR. ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. MANGALDAS S/O. SUBRAY KAMAT AGE: MAJOR, 0CC: RYOT, R/O. AVERSA, TQ: ANKOLA.

2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-42.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:30.06.201 1, PASSED IN LAC NO.4/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,770/- PER GUNTA. 32

IN M.F.A. NO.21219/2012:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR,

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. PREMA RAMA GUNAGI, AGE: MAJOR,

R/O. KODAR VILLAGE,

KARWAR, TQ: DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

2. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, K. KAMRAJ ROAD, BANGALORE-42. RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:30.10.2006, PASSED IN LAC NO.261/1994, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KARWAR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.22376/20 12:

BETWEEN

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. frtl

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR,

APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

L RUPUKUSLUGOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.

1A. RAMA S/0. RUPU GOUDA AGE: 58 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADAGARI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

lB. NAGI D/O. RUPU GOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

RENUKA KOM KESHAVA GOUDA, AGE: 51 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

2. NAGU S/O. KASLU GOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

2A. TOKU NAGU GOUDA, AGE: 53 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/0. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

2B. POKKA NAGU GOUDA AGE: 51 YEARS,

0CC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

2C. SAVITHRI W/0. MANKALU GOUDA AGE: 38 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, 34

R/O. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, ANKOLA.

3. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:16.12.2008, PASSED IN LAC NO.28/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN.), KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.22430/2012:

BETWEEN

I. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO

THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.

2. THE SPECIAL LAND AQUISITION OFFICER, AND KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD., KARWAR.

APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. BUDDU SOMEBADDU SOME GOUDA AGE: 51 YRS, R/O BADAGERI, POST: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

SOMA SOMU GOUDA

SINCE DECEASED HIS LRS

2. SANNU W/O SOMA GOUDA AGE: 60 YRS,

35

0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUITES, R/O BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

RAMA S/O SOMA GOUDA

SINCE DECEASED HIS LRS.

3. SANMAGU W/O RAMA GOUDA AGE: 39 YRS,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUITES, R/O BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

4. UMESH S/0 RAMA GOUDA AGE: 20 YRS,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

5. KUSUMA W/O RAJU GOUDA AGE: 22 YRS,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/0 BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

6. HALAKKI S/0 SOMA GOUDA AGE: 40 YRS, 0CC: AGRICULTURIST R/0 BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

7. SHIVAKANT S/O SOMA GOUDA AGE: 35 YRS, 0CC: AGRICULTURIST R/0 BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

8. GULABI W/0 DEVU GOUDA AGE: 42 YRS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

9. AYAMMA W/O SUKRU GOUDA AGE: 36 YRS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD DUTIES, R/O BADAGERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

RAKU SOMU GOUDA

SINCE DECESED BY HIS LRS 36

10, HONNAPPA RAKU GOUDA, AGE: 35 YRS,

R/O BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

11. BUDDURAKUGOUDA AGE: 32 YRS,

R/O BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

12. DEVU SUKRU GOUDA AGE: 38 YRS, R/O BADAGERI POST: BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

HONNA SUKRU GOUDA

SINCE DECEASED HIS LRS

13. MANGALA W/O HONNA GOUDA AGE: 30 YRS, R/O BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

14. DEEPIKA HONNA GOUDA AGE: 18 YRS, R/O BHAVIKERI TQ: ANKOLA.

15. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:05.04.2010, PASSED IN LAC NO.30/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.22431/2012:

BETWEEN

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE. 37

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISiTION OFFICER, PROJECT SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, KARWAR. APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K, VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. SMT. UMBAI RENUKA NAIK, R/O AMADALLI, VILLAGE, KARWAR.

2. KRISHNA RENUKA NAIK R/O AMADALLI VILLAGE, KARWAR.

3. VISHNU RENUKA NAIK, R/O AMADALLI VILLAGE, KARWAR.

4. GANAPATI RENUKA NAIK R/O AMADALLI VILLAGE, KARWAR.

5. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 042.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISI TION

ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD

DTD:07.07.2011, PASSED IN LAC NO.119/2010 , ON THE

FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN. ), KARWAR,

AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1 1,500/- PER GUNTA.

38

IN M.F.A. NO.22462/2012:

BETWEEN

I. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BAN GALORE,

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACUQISITION OFFICER, SEA BIRD PROJECT, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

I. SHIVA MANKALU GOUDA R/O. BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

2. TIMMA MANKALU GOUDA R/O. BADAGERI, BHAVIKAERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

KUTNA MANKALU GOUDA

R/O. BADAGERI,

BHAVIKERI, TQ. ANKOLA. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,

3. SHIVA S/0. MANKALU GOUDA AGE: 60 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADAGERI, BHAVIKAERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

4. TIMMA S/O. MANKALU GOUDA AGE: 55 YEARS,

R/O. BADAGERI, ALAGERI,

frL

39

TQ: ANKOLA.

BUDDU GIDDA GOUDA

AGE. 55 YEARS, R/O.BADAOERI, ALAGERI, TQ. ANKOLA. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

5. SMT. DOLLI W/O. BUDDU GOUDA AGE: 45 YEARS, 0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR PRIMARY SCHOOL, BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

6. SMT. SUMITRA D/O. BUDDU GOUDA AGE: 25 YEARS,

0CC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR PRIMARY SCHOOL, BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

7. BEERA S/O. BUDDU GOUDA AGE: 23 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/0. NEAR PRIMARY SCHOOL, BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

8. VINAYAK S/O. BUDDU GOUDA AGE: 20 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR PRIMARY SCHOOL, BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

9. RAMESH Sb. BUDDU GOUDA AGE: 18 YEARS, 0CC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEAR PRIMARY SCHOOL, BADAGERI, BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

10. GOVIND GIDDA GOUDA R/O. BADAGERI,

BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA. 40

11. A'U GIDDA GOUDA RIO. BADAGERI,

BHAVIKERI, TQ: ANKOLA.

12. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE.

RESPONDENTS

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DTD:16.09.2009, PASSED IN LAC NO.183/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) KUMTA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1 1,500/- PER GUNTA.

IN M.F.A. NO.22889/2009:

BETWEEN

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER PROJECT SEA BIRD, NAVAL BASE, KARWAR.

APPELLANT

(BY SMT. K. VIDYAVATI, A.G.A.)

AND

1. SIDDA JANGA GOUDA RYOT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

1A. UMAKANT SIDDA GOUDA, R/O AMADALLI, DIST:KARWAR. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR.

a) SIDDA JANGA GOUDA RYOT R/O. AMADALLI,

KARWAR TALUK & DIST.

2. SANNE W/O THIMA GOUDA 41

SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS.

2A. KRISHNA TAMSAKE GOUDA AGED:60 YRS, RIO MUDALMAKKI, BINGAGA.

2B. VASU TAMSHAKA GOUDA AGE:45 YRS, R/O MUDALMAKKI, BINGAGA.

2C. SMT. HOLI W/O NARAYAN GOUDA AGE:40 YRS, R/O MUDALMAKKI, BINGAGA.

3. SOMU KUSLA GOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

3A. RAMACHANDRA 5/0 SOMA GOUDA AGED:38 YRS, R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ:ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR.

3B. THAKU 5/0 SOMA GOUDA AGED:30 YRS, RYOT,

R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ:ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR.

3C. JAIWANT S/O SOMA GOUDA AGED:28 YRS, RYOT,

R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ:ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR.

3D. DEVI D/O SOMA GOUDA AGED:24 YRS, RYOT,

R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ:ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR.

3E. SAROJINI D/O SOMA GOUDA AGED:24 YRS, RYOT,

R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA, 42

TQ:ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR.

3F. GANDHARI D/O SOMAGOUDA AGED: 18 YRS, RYOT,

R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ:ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR.

3G. SMT. PREETI W/O SOMA GOUDA AGED:65 YRS, RYOT,

R/O SAKALBENA, AVERSA, TQ:ANKOLA, DIST:KARWAR,

3H. SMT. PARVATI W/O ASHOK GOUDA AGE:MAJOR, RYOT,

R/O TODUR COLONY,

TQ. & DIST:KARWAR.

31, DOLLA S/O KHUSLU GOUDA AGED:60 YRS,

R/O TODUR COLONY,

DI ST: KARWAR.

3J. SEETARAM S/O KHUSLU GOUDA AGED:55 YRS,

R/O TODUR COLONY,

DIST:KARWAR.

4. MOTA 5/0 KRISHNA GOUDA R/O MUDAGA, AMADALLI, DIST:KARWAR.

5. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER, KARNATAKA & GOA CIRCLE, BANGALORE.

RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADV. FOR R4; SRI B. PAPEGOUDA, ADV. FOR R5; R2(A-C) & R3(A-J) ARE SERVED)

43

c

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:23-03-2007, PASSED IN L.A.C, NO.16/ 1995 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), AT KARWAR. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 11,500 /-

PER GUNTA.

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Common questions of law and fact arise for decision making, and therefore, these appeals are clubbed togeth er and disposed of by this order.

2. Learned Government Advocate submits that a Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. NO.20344/20 10 and connected appeals by order dated 31.05.2010, confirmed the market value of the land acquired for Sea Bird Project, at Rs. 11,500/- per gunta. In that view of the matter, these appeals do not survive for consideration. Appeals are accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

hnm/

Supreme Court verdict on Adoptions

Supreme Court verdict on adoptions is a turning point - Kashmir Times

The three-Bench judgment of the Supreme Court of February 19 - Shabnam Hashmi vs the Union of India and Others, provided a considerable advancement in law on the issue of adoption. It ruled that all persons, irrespective of religion, caste and creed, have the option of adopting a child under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) (JJ) Act 2000. However, it stopped short of declaring the right to adoption and the right of a child to be adopted as fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right to life, citing "conflicting thought processes in this sphere of practices and belief prevailing in this country."

In India, issues relating to marriage and marital relationships, including adoption, have been historically governed by religion-based family laws - the Special Marriage Act of 1954 is the only exception. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) 1956 provides for adoption of children by married couples/single persons from the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities, while the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 provides for guardianship for persons not covered under the HAMA, including Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews. 

The difference between adoption and guardianship is significant: adoption allows the adopted child to be treated on par with the biological child in the eyes of the law, on all matters including that of inheriting property. In contrast, although guardianship provides an individual other than the parent of the child the opportunity to address and meet the physical, financial and psychological needs of the child, the biological parents' do not relinquish their rights over that child. Those not governed by HAMA can only be guardians of the children they have chosen to adopt until the enactment of the JJ Act 2000. This was the case with Shabnam Hashmi, too - the petitioner in the present case.

While the JJ Act 2000 Act made a mention of adoption as a form of rehabilitation and social reintegration of orphaned, abandoned and surrendered children, the 2006 amendment to the JJ Act defined adoption, and stated expressly that the legal status of adopted children would be on par with biological children. These provisions have been used for adoption, not only by non-Hindus but also by Hindus, for consecutive adoptions of children belonging to the same sex since HAMA stipulates that no person/couple can adopt a second child of the same sex as the first. 

However, until the present Supreme Court judgment came about, confusion remained as to whether the relevant provisions of the JJ Act superseded family laws of those communities that did not recognise adoption as legal. Doubts were raised citing various grounds - including that the JJ Act is not a specific adoption law, although it contains a provision for adoption; that the JJ Act does not mention adoption in its statement of objects and reasons; and that it does not expressly state that the Act supersedes other laws pertaining to adoption. The Supreme Court judgment has removed this confusion by clearly stating that the JJ Act provides an option to members of all religious communities to adopt a child.

Significantly, the Supreme Court thwarted the attempt of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) to contain adoption within the confines of family laws. It overruled the objections raised by the AIMPLB that Islamic law does not recognise adoption. The Board's opposition was not new. In 1972, it had opposed the Adoption of Children Bill 1972, aimed at providing a secular law on adoption. A subsequent Bill of 1980 on the same issue carved out an exception for the Muslim community.

Before the Supreme Court, the AIMPLB had argued that the "kafala" system under Islamic law provided for a childless couple to take care of a child's well-being, both emotional and material, but the child remained that of the biological parents. The Board wanted the court to issue a direction to all Child Welfare Committees "to keep in mind and follow the principles of Islamic law before declaring a Muslim child available for adoption". The AIMPLB's argument is far removed from reality, as many children who are given in adoption are those abandoned by their biological parents and whose religion and antecedents are not always known. The court did not concede to AIMPLB's request. 

By emphasising on the optional nature of the provisions of JJ Act 2000 and the agency of individuals in adopting a child under those provisions, and highlighting simultaneously the philosophy of rehabilitation and social integration of children, the Supreme Court rightly stated that though personal beliefs and faiths must be honoured, they cannot dictate the operations of the provisions of an enabling statute like the JJ Act. 

During the discourse on the Uniform Civil Code in the 1980s and 1990s, in addition to Muslims, Parsis too were opposed to making adoption available to members of their community. The Bombay Zoroastrian Jashan Committee had opposed The Adoption of Children Bill 1980 and demanded an exemption from its application for Parsis as in the case of Muslims. As K.J. Gandhi, erstwhile Secretary of the Federation of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman of India, once explained, Parsis would not like to adopt a non-Parsi child, as only Parsis are entitled to enter the fire temple and receive benefits from private Parsi trusts - thus adoption by Parsis would have to be of a Parsi child. In the recent proceedings, however, no representatives from the Parsi community intervened.

Adoption is not merely a legal issue; it has many social ramifications. India has a large number of children abandoned at birth. A petition to the Supreme Court filed in 2011 by a private adoption agency, Ashraya, had stated that there are about 11 million abandoned children in the country, 90 per cent of whom were girls - a testimony to the high son preference in Indian society. In addition, there are orphaned children and some who have been 'surrendered' by one or both parents who have chosen to relinquish their rights over them because of adverse personal circumstances. The central government informed the Supreme Court that in the months of January to September 2013, 19,884 adoptions had taken place, which is clearly a minuscule proportion of the actual number of abandoned kids whose fate can only be imagined. If these children are not placed for adoption and rightfully settled in caring families, they face the imminent risk of being trafficked for sex work, used as forced labour or end up in other equally horrendous situations. 

It is against this backdrop that we have to gauge the significance of the Supreme Court judgment. It may not lead to thousands flocking to adopt under the JJ Act with immediate effect. Certainly many practical obstacles remain for non-Hindus wishing to adopt by citing this judgment. Given strong ties with their religious communities, there are several who may even be reluctant to accept the judgment. Yet, there can be no denying that the judgment has extricated adoption from the labyrinth of family laws, and given it a universal application cutting across religious identities, just as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) 2005 and Child Marriage Prohibition Act 2006 had done earlier. 

At its crux, adoption is a compelling way to meet the needs of children in dire need of a family even as it addresses the desires of persons and families who wish to raise a non-biological child as their own. 

(Saumya Uma is a researcher and trainer on gender, law and human rights.)

—(Women's Feature Service)

Source - http://www.kashmirtimes.in/newsdet.aspx?q=31947

Excerpts from the Judgement on TransGenders - National Legal Services Authority … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others

Judgment Source - http://www.legalcrystal.com/1137428

Court : Supreme

Judge : K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN and A.K. SIKRI

Decided On : Apr-15-2014

Appellant : National Legal Ser.Auth.

Respondent : Union of India & Ors.

Judgment:

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.400 OF2012 National Legal Services Authority … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.604 OF2013

JUDGMENT

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Seldom, our society realizes or cares to realize the trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are sidelined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society’s unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mindset which we have to change.

2. We are, in this case, concerned with the grievances of the members of Transgender Community (for short ‘TG community’) who seek a legal declaration of their gender identity than the one assigned to them, male or female, at the time of birth and their prayer is that non-recognition of their gender identity violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hijras/Eunuchs, who also fall in that group, claim legal status as a third gender with all legal and constitutional protection.

3. The National Legal Services Authority, constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1997, to provide free legal services to the weaker and other marginalized sections of the society, has come forward to advocate their cause, by filing Writ Petition No.400 of 2012. Poojaya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society, a registered association, has also preferred Writ Petition No.604 of 2013, seeking similar reliefs in respect of Kinnar community, a TG community.

Their historical background and individual scenario has been stated in detail in the accompanying judgment rendered by my learned Brother. Few things which follow from this discussion are summed up below:
“(a) Though in the past TG in India was treated with great respect, that does not remain the scenario any longer. Attrition in their status was triggered with the passing of the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 which deemed the entire community of Hijara persons as innately ‘criminal’ and ‘adapted to the systematic commission of non-bailable offences’. This dogmatism and indoctrination of Indian people with aforesaid presumption, was totally capricious and nefarious. There could not have been more harm caused to this community with the passing of the aforesaid brutal Legislation during British Regime with the vicious and savage this mind set. To add insult to the irreparable injury caused, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was misused and abused as there was a tendency, in British period, to arrest and prosecute TG persons under Section 377 merely on suspicion. To undergo this sordid historical harm caused to TGs of India, there is a need for incessant efforts with effervescence. (b) There may have been marginal improvement in the social and economic condition of TGs in India. It is still far from satisfactory and these TGs continue to face different kinds of economic blockade and social degradation. They still face multiple forms of oppression in this country. Discrimination qua them is clearly discernable in various fields including health care, employment, education, social cohesion etc. (c) The TGs are also citizens of this country. They also have equal right to achieve their full potential as human beings. For this purpose, not only they are entitled to proper education, social assimilation, access to public and other places but employment opportunities as well. The discussion above while dealing with the first issue, therefore, equally applies to this issue as well.

111. We are of the firm opinion that by recognizing such TGs as third gender, they would be able to enjoy their human rights, to which they are largely deprived of for want of this recognition. As mentioned above, the issue of transgender is not merely a social or medical issue but there is a need to adopt human right approach towards transgenders which may focus on functioning as an interaction between a person and their environment highlighting the role of society and changing the stigma attached to them. TGs face many disadvantages due to various reasons, particularly for gender abnormality which in certain level needs to physical and mental disability. Up till recently they were subjected to cruelty, pity or charity. Fortunately, there is a paradigm shift in thinking from the aforesaid approach to a rights based approach. Though, this may be the thinking of human rights activist, the society has not kept pace with this shift. There appears to be limited public knowledge and understanding of same-sex sexual orientation and people whose gender identity and expression are incongruent with their biological sex. As a result of this approach, such persons are socially excluded from the mainstream of the society and they are denied equal access to those fundamental rights and freedoms that the other people enjoy freely.(See, Hijras/Transgender Women in India: HIV, Human Rights and Social Exclusion, UNDP report on India Issue: December, 2010).

112. Some of the common and reported problem that transgender most commonly suffer are: harassment by the police in public places, harassment at home, police entrapment, rape, discriminations, abuse in public places et.al. The other major problems that the transgender people face in their daily life are discrimination, lack of educational facilities, lack of medical facilities, homelessness, unemployment, depression, hormone pill abuse, tobacco and alcohol abuse, and problems related to marriage and adoption. In spite of the adoption of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in the year 1948, the inherent dignity, equality, respect and rights of all human beings throughout the world, the transgender are denied basic human rights. This denial is premised on a prevalent juridical assumption that the law should target discrimination based on sex (i.e., whether a person is anatomically male or female), rather than gender (i.e., whether a person has qualities that society consider masculine or feminine (Katherine M.Franke, The Central Mistake of Sex Discrimination Law: the Disaggregation of Sex from Gender, 144 U.Pa.Rev.1,3 (1995) (arguing that by defining sex in biological terms, the law has failed to distinguish sex from gender, and sexual differentiation from sex discrimination). Transgender people are generally excluded from the society and people think transgenderism as a medical disease. Much like the disability, which in earlier times was considered as an illness but later on looked upon as a right based approach. The question whether transgenderism is a disease is hotly debated in both the transgender and medical-psychiatric communities. But a prevalent view regarding this is that transgenderism is not a disease at all, but a benign normal variant of the human experience akin to left- handedness.

113. Therefore, gender identification becomes very essential component which is required for enjoying civil rights by this community. It is only with this recognition that many rights attached to the sexual recognition as ‘third gender’ would be available to this community more meaningfully viz. the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to marry, the right to claim a formal identity through a passport and a ration card, a driver’s license, the right to education, employment, health so on.

114. Further, there seems to be no reason why a transgender must be denied of basic human rights which includes Right to life and liberty with dignity, Right to Privacy and freedom of expression, Right to Education and Empowerment, Right against violence, Right against Exploitation and Right against Discrimination. Constitution has fulfilled its duty of providing rights to transgenders. Now it’s time for us to recognize this and to extend and interpret the Constitution in such a manner to ensure a dignified life of transgender people. All this can be achieved if the beginning is made with the recognition that TG as third gender.

115. In order to translate the aforesaid rights of TGs into reality, it becomes imperative to first assign them their proper ‘sex’. As is stated earlier, at the time of birth of a child itself, sex is assigned. However, it is either male or female. In the process, the society as well as law, has completely ignored the basic human right of TGs to give them their appropriate sex categorization. Up to now, they have either been treated as male or female. This is not only improper as it is far from truth, but indignified to these TGs and violates their human rights.

116. Though there may not be any statutory regime recognizing ‘third gender’ for these TGs. However, we find enough justification to recognize this right of theirs in natural law sphere. Further, such a justification can be traced to the various provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution relating to ‘Fundamental Rights’. In addition to the powerful justification accomplished in the accompanying opinion of my esteemed Brother, additional raison d’etre for this conclusion is stated hereinafter.

117. We are in the age of democracy, that too substantive and liberal democracy. Such a democracy is not based solely on the rule of people through their representatives’ namely formal democracy. It also has other percepts like Rule of Law, human rights, independence of judiciary, separation of powers etc.

118. There is a recognition to the hard realty that without protection for human rights there can be no democracy and no justification for democracy. In this scenario, while working within the realm of separation of powers (which is also fundamental to the substantive democracy), the judicial role is not only to decide the dispute before the Court, but to uphold the rule of law and ensure access to justice to the marginalized section of the society. It cannot be denied that TGs belong to the unprivileged class which is a marginalized section.

119. The role of the Court is to understand the central purpose and theme of the Constitution for the welfare of the society. Our Constitution, like the law of the society, is a living organism. It is based on a factual and social realty that is constantly changing. Sometimes a change in the law precedes societal change and is even intended to stimulate it. Sometimes, a change in the law is the result in the social realty. When we discuss about the rights of TGs in the constitutional context, we find that in order to bring about complete paradigm shift, law has to play more pre-dominant role. As TGs in India, are neither male nor female, treating them as belonging to either of the aforesaid categories, is the denial of these constitutional rights. It is the denial of social justice which in turn has the effect of denying political and economic justice.

120. In Dattatraya Govind Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR1977SC915 this Court observed:

“Our Constitution is a tryst with destiny, preamble with luscent solemnity in the words ‘Justice – social, economic and political.’ The three great branches of Government, as creatures of the Constitution, must remember this promise in their fundamental role and forget it at their peril, for to do so will be a betrayal of chose high values and goals which this nation set for itself in its objective Resolution and whose elaborate summation appears in Part IV of the Paramount Parchment. The history of our country’s struggle for independence was the story of a battle between the forces of socio-economic exploitation and the masses of deprived people of varying degrees and the Constitution sets the new sights of the nation…..Once we grasp the dharma of the Constitution, the new orientation of the karma of adjudication becomes clear. Our founding fathers, aware of our social realities, forged our fighting faith and integrating justice in its social, economic and political aspects. While contemplating the meaning of the Articles of the Organic Law, the Supreme Court shall not disown Social Justice.”

121. Oliver Wendlle Holmes said:

“the life of law has been logical; it has been experience”. It may be added that ‘the life of law is not just logic or experience. The life of law is renewable based on experience and logic, which adapted law to the new social realty’. Recognizing this fact, the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution are required to be given new and dynamic meaning with the inclusion of rights of TGs as well. In this process, the first and foremost right is to recognize TGs as ‘third gender’ in law as well. This is a recognition of their right of equality enshrined in Art.14 as well as their human right to life with dignity, which is the mandate of the Art.21 of the Constitution. This interpretation is in consonance with new social needs. By doing so, this Court is only bridging the gap between the law and life and that is the primary role of the Court in a democracy. It only amounts to giving purposive interpretation to the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution so that it can adapt to the changes in realty. Law without purpose has no raison d’etre. The purpose of law is the evolution of a happy society. As Justice Iyer has aptly put:

“The purpose of law is the establishment of the welfare of society “and a society whose members enjoy welfare and happiness may be described as a just society. It is a negation of justice to say that some members, some groups, some minorities, some individuals do not have welfare: on the other hand they suffer from ill-fare. So it is axiomatic that law, if it is to fulfil itself, must produce a contented, dynamic society which is at once meting out justice to its members.”

122. It is now very well recognized that the Constitution is a living character; its interpretation must be dynamic. It must be understood in a way that intricate and advances modern realty. The judiciary is the guardian of the Constitution and by ensuring to grant legitimate right that is due to TGs, we are simply protecting the Constitution and the democracy inasmuch as judicial protection and democracy in general and of human rights in particular is a characteristic of our vibrant democracy.

123. As we have pointed out above, our Constitution inheres liberal and substantive democracy with rule of law as an important and fundamental pillar. It has its own internal morality based on dignity and equality of all human beings. Rule of law demands protection of individual human rights. Such rights are to be guaranteed to each and every human being. These TGs, even though insignificant in numbers, are still human beings and therefore they have every right to enjoy their human rights.

124. In National Human Rights Commission vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh (AIR1996SC1234, This Court observed:

“We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.”

125. The rule of law is not merely public order. The rule of law is social justice based on public order. The law exists to ensure proper social life. Social life, however, is not a goal in itself but a means to allow the individual to life in dignity and development himself. The human being and human rights underlie this substantive perception of the rule of law, with a proper balance among the different rights and between human rights and the proper needs of society. The substantive rule of law “is the rule of proper law, which balances the needs of society and the individual.”

This is the rule of law that strikes a balance between society’s need for political independence, social equality, economic development, and internal order, on the one hand, and the needs of the individual, his personal liberty, and his human dignity on the other. It is the duty of the Court to protect this rich concept of the rule of law.

126. By recognizing TGs as third gender, this Court is not only upholding the rule of law but also advancing justice to the class, so far deprived of their legitimate natural and constitutional rights. It is, therefore, the only just solution which ensures justice not only to TGs but also justice to the society as well. Social justice does not mean equality before law in papers but to translate the spirit of the Constitution, enshrined in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy into action, whose arms are long enough to bring within its reach and embrace this right of recognition to the TGs which legitimately belongs to them.

127. Aristotle opined that treating all equal things equal and all unequal things unequal amounts to justice. Kant was of the view that at the basis of all conceptions of justice, no matter which culture or religion has inspired them, lies the golden rule that you should treat others as you would want everybody to treat everybody else, including yourself. When Locke conceived of individual liberties, the individuals he had in mind were independently rich males. Similarly, Kant thought of economically self- sufficient males as the only possible citizens of a liberal democratic state. These theories may not be relevant in today’s context as it is perceived that the bias of their perspective is all too obvious to us. In post-traditional liberal democratic theories of justice, the background assumption is that humans have equal value and should, therefore, be treated as equal, as well as by equal laws. This can be described as ‘Reflective Equilibrium’. The method of Reflective Equilibrium was first introduced by Nelson Goodman in ‘Fact, Fiction and Forecast’ (1955). However, it is John Rawls who elaborated this method of Reflective Equilibrium by introducing the conception of ‘Justice as Fairness’. In his ‘Theory of Justice’, Rawls has proposed a model of just institutions for democratic societies. Herein he draws on certain pre-theoretical elementary moral beliefs (‘considered judgments’), which he assumes most members of democratic societies would accept. “[Justice as fairness [….]. tries to draw solely upon basic intuitive ideas that are embedded in the political institutions of a constitutional democratic regime and the public traditions of their interpretations. Justice as fairness is a political conception in part because it starts from within a certain political tradition. Based on this preliminary understanding of just institutions in a democratic society, Rawls aims at a set of universalistic rules with the help of which the justice of present formal and informal institutions can be assessed. The ensuing conception of justice is called ‘justice as fairness’. When we combine Rawls’s notion of Justice as Fairness with the notions of Distributive Justice, to which Noble Laureate Prof. Amartya Sen has also subscribed, we get jurisprudential basis for doing justice to the Vulnerable Groups which definitely include TGs. Once it is accepted that the TGs are also part of vulnerable groups and marginalized section of the society, we are only bringing them within the fold of aforesaid rights recognized in respect of other classes falling in the marginalized group. This is the minimum riposte in an attempt to assuage the insult and injury suffered by them so far as to pave way for fast tracking the realization of their human rights.

128. The aforesaid, thus, are my reasons for treating TGs as ‘third gender’ for the purposes of safeguarding and enforcing appropriately their rights guaranteed under the Constitution. These are my reasons in support of our Constitution to the two issues in these petitions. …………………….J.

(A.K.Sikri) 129. We, therefore, declare: (1) Hijras, Eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as “third gender” for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature. (2) Transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender. (3) We direct the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments. (4) Centre and State Governments are directed to operate separate HIV Sero-survellance Centres since Hijras/ Transgenders face several sexual health issues. (5) Centre and State Governments should seriously address the problems being faced by Hijras/Transgenders such as fear, shame, gender dysphoria, social pressure, depression, suicidal tendencies, social stigma, etc. and any insistence for SRS for declaring one’s gender is immoral and illegal. (6) Centre and State Governments should take proper measures to provide medical care to TGs in the hospitals and also provide them separate public toilets and other facilities. (7) Centre and State Governments should also take steps for framing various social welfare schemes for their betterment. (8) Centre and State Governments should take steps to create public awareness so that TGs will feel that they are also part and parcel of the social life and be not treated as untouchables. (9) Centre and the State Governments should also take measures to regain their respect and place in the society which once they enjoyed in our cultural and social life.

130. We are informed an Expert Committee has already been constituted to make an in-depth study of the problems faced by the Transgender community and suggest measures that can be taken by the Government to ameliorate their problems and to submit its report with recommendations within three months of its constitution. Let the recommendations be examined based on the legal declaration made in this Judgment and implemented within six months.

131. Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed, as above. …..………………………J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan) ………………………….J.

(A.K. Sikri) New Delhi, April 15, 2014.