Thimmarayaswamy C N Vs State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industry, M S Building, Dr Ambedkar Road, Bengaluru - 560001 & Ors.

Karnataka High Court At Bengaluru 31 Dec 2024 Writ Petition No. 35828 Of 2024 (LA-KIADB) (2024) 12 KAR CK 0038
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 35828 Of 2024 (LA-KIADB)

Hon'ble Bench

Suraj Govindaraj, J

Advocates

Fayaz Sab B.G., Mohammed Jaffar Shah

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Judgement Text

Translate:

Suraj Govindaraj, J

1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel Sri. P.V.Chandrashekar is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

3. Notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

4. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

1. TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMOU, Sin the nature of Order/direction, directing the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to consider the

Representations dated 08.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner requesting not to disburse the award amount to the Respondent Nos.5 & 6

since the Schedule Property is Hindu Undivided joint Family Property of the Petitioner herein, which are produced herewith for the kind

perusal of this Hon'ble Court and marked as ANNEXURES-G & H, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. TO, GRANT, such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of

justice and equity.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the compensation amount towards property acquired by the KIADB as regard with the petitioner has right in,

is proposed to be disbursed to respondent Nos.5 and 6 without considering the rights of the petitioner. If at all, the petitioner has any right in the

property, it is always available to the petitioner to seek for reference to determine the apportionment of the compensation as regards acquiring.

6. In that view of the matter, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek for such reference by filing necessary applications before respondent No.4, the

above petition is disposed off.

7. If an application for reference is made before respondent No.4, respondent No.4 to decide on the same within two weeks of the application being

filed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Rules: Degree Title Not Mandatory If Core Subject Studied
Dec
07
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Rules: Degree Title Not Mandatory If Core Subject Studied
Read More
ITAT Slams Sexist Assumptions in Tax Order, Upholds Women’s Expertise in Business Commission Case
Dec
07
2025

Court News

ITAT Slams Sexist Assumptions in Tax Order, Upholds Women’s Expertise in Business Commission Case
Read More