Raghavendra Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
EmailAppeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 975/2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11/12/1998 in MFA 1377/95 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Petitioner: Raghavendra Rao & Ors.
Respondent: State of Karnataka
Apeal: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 975/2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11/12/1998 in MFA 1377/95 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR, D.P. MOHAPATRA & YOGESH KUMAR SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 31, 2000
Appearances:
Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate for Petitioners.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Sections 23, 28A – Request to claim enhanced compensation and to pay deficit court fee – No mention of such request in judgment. Proper course. Held that the proper course was to move review. SLP dismissed as withdrawn to approach High Court for review.(Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners on instructions states that a request was made to the High Court to permit the Petitioners to claim enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- and odd per acre and to permit the Petitioners to pay deficit court-fees. Unfortunately, that request is not dealt with in the impugned judgment. If that is so, the proper course for the Petitioners is to move a review petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this Special Leave Petition with a view to approaching the High Court in review proceedings. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is obvious that the Petitioners were bona fide agitating about this grievance in the pending SLP and it is only today that the SLP is being withdrawn to enable the Petitioners to go in review pro-ceedings. Accordingly it would be open to the Petitioners to file appropriate application for condonation of delay before the High Court.
1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners on instructions states that a request was made to the High Court to permit the Petitioners to claim enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- and odd per acre and to permit the Petitioners to pay deficit court-fees. Unfortunately, that request is not dealt with in the impugned judgment. If that is so, the proper course for the Petitioners is to move a review petition. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this Special Leave Petition with a view to approaching the High Court in review proceedings. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is obvious that the Petitioners were bona fide agitating about this grievance in the pending SLP and it is only today that the SLP is being withdrawn to enable the Petitioners to go in review pro-ceedings. Accordingly it would be open to the Petitioners to file appropriate application for condonation of delay before the High Court.
