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

PIL-WP questioning the Logic of Petroleum Pricing - Hon'ble Karnataka HC issues Notices

The Public Interest litigation (PIL) - writ petition filed in the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court  by NP Amrutesh, and presented by Senior Advocate SP Shankar, has questioned the unreasonable profits made by the government from sale of petroleum products.

And argues in favour of a sharp drop in retail price of diesel, petrol and LPG to benefit the common man. It argues that the cost for such a drop in retail prices could be easily covered by the humongous sale of 166 by-products of crude oil, and has gone on to say that the actual retail price of diesel in Bengaluru comes to Rs 13.35 per litre. 

Acting on the petition, the High Court issued notices to the Union government and its oil marketing companies and agencies.
The petition, says, "Under RTI Act, specific information is obtained in regard to the actual cost of acquisition, cost of cracking, blending and refining as well as cost of transportation from the refineries to the outlets and that the comprehensive cost of 1 litre of diesel at Bangalore is Rs 13.35 paise. Respondents have not furnished the cost of petrol and kerosene in like terms."

Besides the Union government, the high court issued notices to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Hindustan Petroleum (HP), Bharat Petroleum (BP) and oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC).

The petition alleged that the government was making profits by selling petroleum products like petrol, diesel, kerosene and LPG at a much higher retail price than what they should actually have.

The petition says the government and oil companies are hiding facts about the actual profits. Around 166 by-products are produced from crude petroleum and all of them are sold. The petition says, "When crude is cracked, refined and blended the products that are generated are 166 in number. The number of by-products has now reached 183. Some of these by-products are used as base material in manufacturing of aspirin and brufane. Entire gamut of base for cosmetics is built on petroleum by-products. Automobile and chemicals and fertiliser industries have roots in petroleum products like naphtha. So the government is never a loser in the matter of refining crude and (is) recovering the entire cost from sale of at least 166 by-products. The GOI through its petroleum ministry has a legal duty to make these aspects transparent and to be accountable to the people."

The petition says that instead of making profit out of the common man, the government can keep the prices low. It says, "The fact that sale of 26 by-products meant for industrial use will alone take care of the entire cost of acquisition of crude, its transportation to refineries at various places in India, for cracking the crude and refinement would show that there is no loss occasioned to the oil industry. Further, rest of the by-products are in constant demand in the market. Their sale is sufficient to make profit."

The petition alleges that the Union government was allowing concentration of wealth and material resources in the hands of the oil companies to the detriment and prejudice of the common good.

"The interest of the public at large is ignored in de-controlling and de-licensing sale of petroleum products by oil marketing companies. (The oil companies) cannot be treated as a trading wing or a commercial enterprise but only a service instrument of the Union of India. People of India do not exist and strive for promoting the interest of oil marketing PSUs or political bosses," it says.

Oil companies exposed

The petition cites the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) reports and also from the reports of the oil companies to show that the companies never suffered losses. "CAG of India has castigated the State owned fuel retailers namely Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Hindustan Petroleum Chemicals Limited and Bharat Petroleum Chemicals Ltd who have overcharged customers from the years 2007-08 to 2011-12 by rupees 26,626 crore, by way of calculating the desired retail price in a manner as if the product was imported by adding customs duty, freight, insurance, ocean loss and wharf-age charges to the prevailing international price of petroleum products," the petition says. "Thus an expenditure never incurred under the headings of L.C Charges, insurance charges, freight, wharfage charges, custom duty and ocean loss, amounting to Rs 50,513/- crores is added to the cost of petroleum products and is passed on to the consumers," it says.

The petition seeks a transparent regulatory mechanism in the matter of sale of petroleum products; a simple cost accounting method of arriving at the selling price namely cost plus margin of profit. The petition says "how the 166 by-products are marketed is not disclosed. There is no transparency or accountability in fixing the price."

The petition, among other things, has sought pricing of petroleum products be as per Constitutional guidelines of a welfare state. It seeks a transparent manner of pricing the products and a court direction to the Union government to commit oil companies to be non-profit-making units. This can be done by considering petroleum a material resource in which earning profit is forbidden, the petition said.

Source - Bangalore Mirror

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/

High Court Stay - Transfer of Patrika Bhavan from Karwar to Sirsi

Justice S Abdul Nazeer of the circuit Bench of Karnataka High Court at Dharwad has stayed the operation of the order issued by the director, department of information, who had ordered the transfer of funds meant for the Patrika Bhavan from Karwar to Sirsi. 


Two separate writ petitions were filed by the Journalists Associations of Karwar. The petition contended that Rs 25 lakh was released by the government to construct Patrika Bhavan in every district headquarter of the state for the use of the working journalists.  But the director of the information department had written a letter to the deputy commissioner of Uttara Kannada district on February 2, asking him to divert the fund to Sirsi. The director had cited that the Journalists Union in Sirsi was recognized by the State Journalists Association and there was no land available in Karwar to build the Bhavan.

The Journalists Association of Karwar had challenged the order contending that the state government had allotted the amount to the district headquarters and the director of the information cannot change the decision of the government. Karwar journalists had shown that they have the land available to build the Patrika Bhavan and the director of the information department had acted unilaterally without giving the proper opportunity to Karwar journalists to prove their case. They had submitted enough evidence to the court that according to the state policy, the money had to be sanctioned to the district headquarters and not to any association or union of journalists. The high court upheld the argument of the Karwar journalists and stayed the operation of the order issued by the director of information department in this regard. 
Advocates V P Kulkarni and K V Kalwad argued on behalf of the Karwar journalists.


Source - Times of India

Impeachment procedure does not work in reality : Justice Kumar - High Court judge fires another salvo -Deccanherald

High Court judge fires another salvo

Bangalore Dec 25 DH News Service

In yet another salvo, Justice V Shylendra Kumar, on Friday, said in clear terms that acts of misconduct and misdemeanour on the part of the some judges of the higher judiciary amounted to gross violation of the principle of judicial accountability.

In an article titled ‘Judicial Accountability’, written for the Conference of Karnataka State Advocates which will be inaugurated in Hubli on December 27, Justice Kumar refers to, without taking names, the inaction and inertia of the higher judiciary in relation to the strong allegations of corruption and misdemeanour against Karnataka Chief Justice P D Dinakaran. Justice Kumar’s article which is posted on his website (http://sites.google.com/site.justdvskumar), comes a few days after five judges of the HC including he, held a closed door meeting on Justice Dinakaran continuing to discharge administrative duties. Referring to the impeachment motion moved against Justice Dinakaran in the Rajya Sabha recently, Justice Kumar holds the view that for the present, there is no other mechanism to discipline an errant judge of a superior court. He says “If the past experience is any indication, the impeachment procedure does not work in reality and practice. More so in the present political system in the country with fragmented political parties and views.” Stating that the impeachment mechanism is not a ‘practical methodology of disciplining an errant judge of a superior court,’ Justice Kumar in effect, hints at a more foolproof system of accountability since he believes that superior court judges are immune from any oversight.  Virtually questioning the moral authority of the Chief Justice of India (in the backdrop of CJI K G Balakrishnan’s role in la affaire Dinakaran) Justice Kumar says that the CJI’s “moral authority to ensure that erring judges fall in place and behave themselves is a misnomer and misconception.” In this context, Justice Kumar points out that “the moral authority of the CJI is of no value or significance, unless it can have some binding effect, which is not provided under the Constitution.”  He goes on to liken the CJI to a fangless serpent who can only hiss and not bite. Clearly directing his ire against Justice Dinakaran and indicating that he “is a brazen person on whom no moral authority binds,” Justice Kumar indirectly seeks a stronger mechanism to ensure that errant judges are held accountable. He exhorts the lawyers to ensure that the judges conduct themselves in a proper manner in discharging their judicial functions.

Protesting lawyers assault scribes in Karnataka High Court

Collected from News Sources

Bangalore, Nov 9 (IANS) A senior television journalist and a cameraman of a leading English news channel were beaten up Monday in the Karnataka High Court by a group of lawyers protesting the continuation of controversial Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who faces allegations of land-grabbing and amassing disproportionate assets.
The incident occurred in Dinakaran’s courtroom amid chaos when cameraman Venkatesh was talking on his mobile as the lawyers had laid a siege to prevent the proceedings.

As cameras are not allowed inside courtrooms, some lawyers thought Venkatesh was capturing the scuffle that broke out between the advocates on his mobile and started beating him. In the melee, his shirt was torn and he was injured, suffering bruises on his neck and back.

When the journalist, who declined to be named, rushed to Venkatesh’s rescue, he too was assaulted by a group of advocates.

After a miffed Dinakaran left the courtroom in a huff, expressing displeasure over the lawyers’ boycott call, a section of advocates turned their ire on media personnel covering the event.

Condemning the assault, about 60 media persons, including photo-journalists, television cameramen and reporters staged a demonstration outside the high court and called for action against the advocates who beat up Venkatesh and the journalist.

As the high drama and the ugly scenes in the high court premises were relayed on local channels, state Law and Parliamentary Affairs minister S.Suresh Kumar rushed to the spot to inquire into the incident and pacify the media.

Regretting the incident, the minister told reporters the assault on scribes was unfortunate and should not have happened.

“It is not befitting for a noble profession. I will look into the matter and direct the police to nab the culprits,” Kumar said.

A complaint was also filed in the police station against the unidentified advocates who assaulted the duo.

The Advocates Association of Bangalore (AAB), which gave the boycott call, apologised to the media for the unfortunate incident.

“Those lawyers who assaulted Venkatesh and the journalist are not members of our association. In fact, we were protesting against their presence in the courtroom as none of their cases were listed or were being heard by Dinakaran. We have learnt later that about 30-40 advocates, sympathetic to Dinakaran, had assembled in the courtroom to create trouble,” AAB general secretary R. Rajanna told IANS.

In the ensuing chaos, Justices Gopla Gowda and B.V. Nagarathna were also manhandled by a section of the lawyers.

Read more: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/protesting-lawyers-assault-scribes-in-karnataka-high-court_100272360.html#ixzz0WR5DXuMJ

Miffed Dinakaran leaves court amidst lawyers' melee

2009-11-09 23:31:00

A miffed Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran Monday walked out of the court amid chaos when lawyers protesting against his continuation in office laid a siege to his courtroom and refused to withdraw their boycott call. The controversial top judge, who is facing allegations of land-grabbing and amassing disproportionate assets, tried to dissuade the lawyers from disturbing the proceedings, as the high court stayed Saturday the boycott call given by the Advocates Association of Bangalore (AAB) Nov 4. When the lawyers refused to relent, Dinakaran stopped hearing a case and called the association's representatives to tell them that he should be allowed to discharge his constitutional duties. 'What sin have I committed? Why are you protesting against me? Allow me to do my duty. The court cannot tolerate such acts,' Dinakaran said. Rejecting Dinakaran's plea, the advocates continued to shout 'Resign chief justice' and 'Down, down Dinakaran' inside and outside the courtroom and prevented the proceedings. After Dinakaran left for his chamber in a huff, the agitated lawyers rushed to the adjacent courtrooms of Justices Gopala Gowda and B.V. Nagarathna to stall their proceedings. The advocates also prevented the judges from leaving the courtrooms and locked up their chambers subsequently. In the melee, Gowda got hurt when he tried to dissuade the advocates. About 60,000 lawyers abstained from courts across the state in protest against the continuation of Dinakaran in office. 'The boycott of proceedings from lower courts to high court has been total and successful. Though courts were functioning, about 60,000 advocates stayed away from all proceedings,' Advocates Association of Bangalore (AAB) general secretary R. Rajanna told IANS. Though Dinakaran's elevation to the Supreme Court has been put on hold, the lawyers wanted the apex court collegium to give its verdict on the charges submitted by advocates of Tamil Nadu High Court. 'Since the collegium has not completed the probe even 40 days after we first gave a call for Dinakaran's resignation, the association has decided to boycott his court,' Rajanna noted. A section of lawyers, who are not members of the AAB, disagreed with the boycott call. 'There is no legal provision for lawyers to adopt such a resolution for abstaining from courts in protest against a functioning judge or chief justice even if allegations are levelled against him,' D.V. Rajesh, a high court advocate, said. A senior television journalist and a cameraman of a leading English news channel were beaten up by a group of lawyers in the high court premises during the lawyers' agitation against Dinakaran. The incident occurred in Dinakaran's courtroom amid chaos when cameraman Venkatesh was talking on his mobile. As cameras are not allowed inside courtrooms, some lawyers thought Venkatesh was capturing the scuffle that broke out between the advocates on his mobile and started beating him. In the melee, his shirt was torn and he sustained bruises on his neck and back. When the senior journalist, who declined to be named, rushed to Venkatesh's rescue, he too was assaulted by a group of advocates. After Dinakaran left the courtroom, expressing displeasure over the lawyers' boycott call, a section of advocates turned their ire on media personnel covering the event. Condemning the assault, about 60 media persons, including photo-journalists, television cameramen and reporters, staged a demonstration outside the high court and called for action against the advocates who beat up Venkatesh and the journalist. Lawyers assemble before the Karnataka High Court in Bangalore on Monday to protest against Justice P.D. Dinakaran. BANGALORE: In an unprecedented incident, agitating advocates on Monday disrupted the proceedings in the court hall of the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, P.D. Dinakaran. They also raised slogans against him and forced him to adjourn the court for some time.Around 200 advocates also gheraoed Justices V. Gopala Gowda and B.V. Nagaratna when the latter did not heed their demand not to conduct the proceedings.The lawyers locked the doors of the hall where the judges were sitting and cut off power supply. The two judges were able to leave Court Hall No. 2 only after Mr. Justice Dinakaran and several other judges came and escorted them through the jostling crowd.The advocates had turned up in force to ensure that the boycott of all court proceedings in the State, called by the Advocates Association of Bangalore (AAB), was heeded.Tension began building up in the High Court around 11 a.m. when the lawyers found that the proceedings were going on. They began raising slogans against Mr. Justice Dinakaran and asked their colleagues to abstain from the court.The advocates then barged into the court hall and raised slogans against the Chief Justice. They abused the lawyers present in the court, assaulted some, and physically removed them from the court.Mr. Justice Dinakaran urged the agitators to let him speak. He said he had no occasion to speak of the “pain and suffering” he had undergone in recent days. “I have given my explanation. My silence should not be construed as admission of guilt. As a judge, I have to function and discharge my constitutional obligation and that is what I am doing.”With the lawyers refusing to permit him to continue, the Chief Justice left the court hall only to return in the afternoon.Two journalists were also assaulted by the advocates. Karnataka lawyers boycott Dinakaran, go on rampage TNN 10 November 2009, 12:17am IST BANGALORE: All hell broke loose in Karnataka High Court on Monday morning with rowdy elements and angry lawyers creating a ruckus and virtually forcing Chief Justice P D Dinakaran, facing land-grab charges in a village in Tamil Nadu, to suspend proceedings. Worse, members of the Advocates' Association of Bangalore (AAB) kicked up a huge row and locked up two judges when they found they were conducting hearings in a court hall unmindful of their call to stop work. The AAB, which had decided to abstain from court proceedings, wanted to halt business and prevent fellow lawyers from appearing in court. Chief Justice Dinakaran began the day hearing cases amid tight security at the Chief Justice court hall 1. He began proceedings at 10.30am but around 11.25am, nearly 200 lawyers swarmed into the hall, led by AAB president K N Puttegowda. The lawyers began shouting slogans against the CJ and asked him not to preside, in the wake of the Supreme Court Collegium `delinking' his name from the panel of judges short-listed for elevation to the apex court. Justice Dinakaran was initially unmindful of the protest and moved on with the hearing, but the lawyers stepped up their protest. One mediaperson was roughed up in the melee, as lawyers objected to his shooting the proceedings. Dinakaran appealed to the lawyers to maintain silence, but they paid no heed. To maintain peace, he addressed the gathering: ``I have the highest regard for all of you. I had no opportunity to interact with you all. Earlier, I did not have an opportunity to explain the suffering and pain I went through. Now, I am breaking my silence. Tell me, what sin have I committed? Where can I go? I am also one amongst you. I have my own constitutional commitments, allow me to discharge them. I have given my explanation and they (collegium) are seized of the matter.'' Later, with the lawyers unrelenting, the Chief Justice suspended the proceedings and left the court hall. After forcing his exit, the lawyers turned their ire on two judges in court hall 2 - Justice V Gopala Gowda and Justice B V Nagarathna. The unruly group entered the court hall around 12.15 pm and began demanding that the judges wind up proceedings, but they did not budge. This enraged the advocates, who shouted high-pitched slogans, and even tried tricks like singing the National Anthem to make the judges rise from the chairs, but they stood their ground. Some persons tried to ransack the bookshelf and even threw a book towards the judges. Having failed to make the judges leave, the lawyers closed the four doors of the court hall, locking up the two judges, court officers and clerks inside. The police watched helplessly as the lawyers cut off power supply to the court room. A pensive hour-and-half passed before CJ Dinakaran himself arrived at the court hall amidst deafening jeers, and led the judges out of the court hall around 2 pm. As the judges were led away, the lawyers almost roughed them up, but the policemen managed to help the judges to a safe exit. At 3.30 pm, the Chief Justice restarted the hearing with heavy police security around the court premises, and this time, things went off smoothly. The Bench wound up for the day. City police commissioner Shankar Bidari and additional commissioner of police (law and order) M R Pujar visited the Chief Justice at his chamber. Later in the afternoon, when mediapersons went to meet the Chief Justice, he refused to speak on any issue, and stated that there was no confrontation between the Bar and Bench. He also said: ``Administration of justice has been rendered without hurting the rights of lawyers or litigants.'' City court complex The scene was no different at the city civil court complex on Monday morning, with lawyers boycotting the court proceedings. They assembled in front of the front door at the complex and raised slogans against the CJ. The protest went on for nearly two hours and around 12.30 pm, policemen who had entered the premises were shooed away by the lawyers. Later, they marched towards the High Court from the civil court complex, sloganeering all along the way. In contempt? Justice Gopala Gowda and Justice Nagarathna, who resumed their duties at court hall 2, vented their dismay at the turn of events. Senior counsel Ravivarma Kumar said: ``The Bar Association has been hijacked by rowdy elements. The lawyers have thrown the respect of the judiciary to the winds, with this kind of incident happening for the first time in its history.'' Senior counsels urged Justice Gopala Gowda and Justice Nagarathna to take up a `suo motu' case of contempt against the lawyers. Justice Gopala Gowda, who was visibly upset, said: ``They (lawyers) tried to hurl chairs towards us and used abusive language. We will not be cowed down by these people and will discharge our duties as per the Constitution.'' CJ, judges seek police protection After the day's fiasco, the CJ held a meeting late in the evening with seven other judges. Said Registrar-General Justice R Budhihal said: ``When the CJ was conducting court proceedings, nearly 150 lawyers barged in from the back door, creating a ruckus. In the melee, the CJ was manhandled and he also suffered a minor cut between his fingers. Later, he was given medication. Now we have given a detailed report about the day's events and what exactly happened. We are seeking extra protection from the police.'' Lawyers protest outside Dinakaran's courtroomBy Indo Asian News Service | 09 November 2009 | 1:35pm Bangalore, Nov 9 (IANS) Hundreds of lawyers Monday laid siege outside Karnataka High Court chief justice P.D. Dinakaran's courtroom, protesting his continuation despite serious allegations of land grabbing and holding of disproportionate assets against him. Bangalore, Nov 9 (IANS) Hundreds of lawyers Monday laid siege outside Karnataka High Court chief justice P.D. Dinakaran's courtroom, protesting his continuation despite serious allegations of land grabbing and holding of disproportionate assets against him. Senior lawyers term HC incident 'unfortunate' Bangalore, Nov 9 (PTI) Expressing regret over the unruly scenes witnessed in Karnataka High Court today, some senior lawyers termed it as an "unfortunate" incident. "It is unfortunate that this kind of violent protest has taken place. If there were any issues they could have resolved it without resorting to violence or physical attack", Advocate General Ashok Haranahalli said. "It is an unfortunate incident that has happened today. The Advocate Association has not authorised its President to violate high court orders. The President conducted himself in the most irresponsible and unbecoming manner", charged senior lawyer Prof Ravivarma Kumar. "Judges being locked up to prevent discharge of their constitutional duties has never happened", he said demanding that association President Putte Gowda take the blame entirely or quit the post. More trouble in store for Dinakaran The controversial Karnataka High Court Chief Justice, P.D. Dinakaran, whose promotion to the Supreme Court has been put on hold following allegations of corruption, is headed for double trouble on Monday. A leading Bangalore-based lawyers body has decided to abstain from work in the Karnataka High Court and district courts on November 9, to press for an early decision on Justice Dinakaran’s promotion. The same day, a group of farmers in Tiruvallur district of Tamil Nadu, who had filed a police complaint against Justice Dinakaran on October 28 for alleged land grabbing, have threatened to forcibly enter the disputed land and distribute it among the landless poor. The Advocates Association of Bangalore, in a letter to the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, has said the delay in deciding whether Justice Dinakaran would be promoted has “eroded the confidence of the public in the high court.” The association, in three resolutions passed so far in its meetings, has asked Justice Dinakaran not to attend the court till his name was cleared. “We do not want a tainted judge…” association president, K.N. Puttegowda said. All India Kisan Sabha, a frontal wing of the CPI(M), has said it would lead a demonstration in Dinakaran’s village in Tiruvallur on Monday. “…the protesters would forcibly enter the land allegedly encroached by Dinakaran and distribute it among the poor,” peasant leader Tulsi Narayanan said. Did proxy counsel argue Dinakaran case? BANGALORE: While the special bench of the High Court was hearing the petition against lawyers abstaining from court proceedings in protest against Chief Justice P D Dinakaran sitting in judgment, advocate Laxminarayana appeared for the president of Karnataka Advocates Society. He argued that the association has no power to pass such a resolution. While the court was dictating the order, Ramesh Babu, president of the association told the court that he had not entrusted Laxminarayana to argue on his behalf, but had engaged Ashwathanaraya as his advocate. The court wondered at the statement. There was high drama after the court passed the interim order. Advocates geraohed Babu and took him to task for opposing the resolution by filing an interlocutory application in the High Court. Later, Babu apologised for his act. CJI seeks report from Survey of India J. Venkatesan As Dinakaran denies Collector’s version Land in question to be surveyed CJI calls for Tamil Nadu’s views on Collector’s report New Delhi: In a new twist to the controversy over allegations against Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan has sought the Survey of India’s assistance to ascertain whether the judge encroached upon a large extent of government land as stated by the Tiruvallur (Tamil Nadu) Collector. The decision to seek a report from the scientific mapping organisation under the Government of India’s Department of Science and Technology is a sequel to Justice Dinakaran meeting the CJI during the recent all-India Chief Justices conference and stoutly denying the Collector’s version. According to highly placed sources, the Collector, in his report, said Justice Dinakaran put up a barbed wire fence around patta land and government land. Justice Dinakaran, in his reply, was understood to have denied this charge. One of the lawyers’ associations in the Madras High Court also sent a memorandum denying the allegations of land encroachment. In the light of Justice Dinakaran’s denial, the Surveyor-General’s office has been requested to conduct a survey of the area in question and submit a report. It will take into consideration the Collector’s report and the reply by Justice Dinakaran and his family members. The CJI has also sought the views of the Tamil Nadu government on the Collector’s report and enquiries reveal that it is yet to send its response. The Supreme Court collegium of judges headed by the CJI has decided to put on hold the elevation of Justice Dinakaran to the Supreme Court and the next course of action will be taken after reports from the Surveyor-General and the Tamil Nadu government. Dinakaran should go, say top jurists Fresh from their victory in having forced the panel of senior most judges (collegium) to roll back its recommendation for promoting the controversial Karnataka High Court Chief Justice PD Dinakaran to the Supreme Court, top jurists have now said he cannot continue as a judge. Following a series of representations by 10 senior lawyers of the Madras High Court, backed by documentary evidence on the alleged land grabbing — confirmed by the Tamil Nadu government —and passing of orders in favour of his friends by Justice Dinakaran, the collegium finally conceded to the growing public pressure. The lawyers have now questioned his position as a high court chief justice. “Justice Dinakaran’s continuation in the judicial system jeopardizes the integrity of the entire system and in order to prevent any further damage, he should not be permitted to function now,” Madras lawyers have said in a letter to the collegium. Led by jurists R Vaigai and Sreeram Panchu, the lawyers have asked the CJI to order a CBI probe into the allegations against Justice Dinakaran. “…the Supreme Court must ask the CBI to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and other relevant Laws against Justice Dinakaran,” the letter said. Justice Dinakaran’s name has been “delinked” by the collegium from the list of four other judges, recommended along with him for promotion to the Supreme Court on August 27. Decks have now been cleared for the four to be promoted to the top court. The collegium, responsible for the appointment and promotion of judges, met thrice during the last two months to decide the issue, following serious allegations of corruption by top jurists, led by Fali S. Nariman and Shanti Bhushan, against Justice Dinakaran. HT was the first to report about the objection by top jurists in their meeting with the Chief Justice of India (CJI), K. G. Balakrishnan on September 8. Supporting the lawyers, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability said Justice Dinakaran’s position “had become untenable.” “The very fact that the collegium which recommended his name in the first place, had to meet thrice, and finally tried to hide under a confused terminology for an escape route shows Justice Dinakaran should be asked to go,” said the campaign convenor, Prashant Bhushan.