Karnataka High CourtK Hasthimal Sisodia vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2011Author:H.G.RameshBench:H.G.Rameshj;3;4""x3/twin"illfaagelmsiﬁrw2This Writ Appeal is filed u / S 4 of theKarnataka High
Court Actpraying to set aside the order passed in the writ
petition No. 14863/2001 dated 27.5.2004. ' "This Writ Appeal Coming on for final ay,
Chief Justice delivered the following : l "   T  *

JUDGMvENTu4A  

J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral) : V I
A preliminary notifiea-lion» to."   Ema the
appellants land was 'iihereafter, a

final notification was   Possession of

the land a,eqt1ir'esr1':-wastalren  999.2. ____ __Tli§~I__  " the instant writ appeal
approached filing Writ Petition No. 14863/O1.

The aforesaid V{ivriti.'.pet:ition came to be dismissed on

 _ aecoiipinti'of  latches, after the learned Single Judge

V__ recorded' «the following conclusions:That the writ petition had been filed by the

appellant herein after lapse of 12 years.(ii) Challenge to the acquisition proceedings
before this Court in WP Nss.285'77?86/95
was dismissed by this Court on

1204,1996.{iii} The order passed by this Court in W'?
l'{fesi285?'7"~86/§5, thrsngh writ appeal



m..mm

Mil iQm€3€€j».i«t%%,i£ax 
t'

view, that in the pending writ petitions Oifi--;_WhiC_l5l"~.rel§ai1C€

has been placed by the learned; MCVQ_liIlS€--E'l"the petitioners therein had e.hal,leniged._   it

proceedings on aecount'h_ot._x the tact: Hproeedtire
contemplated under flee.   Acquisition
Act, l894 had not  was not
the one of plveais  herein before the
learned  is not possible for us
to render  respect thereof, in the
absenee  halving been raised at the hands

of the appe'l1a1'1t,d:bVefore' the learned Single Judge.

  dflnllnjvijaddition to the pleas noticed hereinabove, it is

A  of the learned counsel for the appellant,

that».anqfginielndment should be permitted in the pleadings,

 as to enable the appellant to raise some pleadings (by

.'   of an amendment) as have been raised in Writ Petition

T "N§.22445/04 and Connected writ petition l\lo.l6858/04.

For the instant proposition, learned {3OLiIlSf3l for the
appellant has placed reliance on a Judgment rendered by
the Supreme Court in Bakshish Singh vsi Prithi Pal Singh

i995 Supp (3) see 577;