Dismissed

Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2014WP/19289/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the preliminary notification for land acquisition under Articles 226 and 227, claiming exemption due to two-crop cultivation. The court found no material evidence proving two-crop cultivation or irrigation, and dismissed the petition for lack of substance.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that two crops were grown on the land.

Parvathamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^th DAY OF JANUARY 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 19289 OF 2012 AND

¶7

22842-22848 OF 2012 (LA-KHB)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Paravathamma, Wife of K. Thamanna, Aged about 70 years,

¶10

[since deceased Represented by her Legal representatives Petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 Amended as per court order dated 08.1.2014]

¶11

K.T. Diwakaraswamy, Son of K. Thamanna, Aged about 48 years,

¶12

Sulochana, Daughter of K. Thamanna, Aged about 36 years,

¶13

¶14

4.	Rukmini, Daughter of K. Thamanna, Aged about 34 years,
5.	K.T. Radhakrishna, Son of K. Thamanna, Aged about 30 years,
6.	K.T. Jayaram, Son of K. Thamanna, Aged about 33 years,
7.	K.T. Prema, Daughter of K. Thamanna, Aged about 38 years,
8.	Balakrishna, Son of K. Thamanna, Aged about 50 years,
	All are residing at Kennal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District.	…PETITIONERS

¶15

(By Shri. V. Srinivas, Advocate)

¶16

AND:

¶17

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary to Revenue Department, Vikas Soudha, Bangalore.

¶18

The Housing Commissioner,

¶19

¶20

The Karnataka Housing Board, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore.

¶21

The Karnataka Housing Board, 9^th Main, Swimming Pool Main Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysore Division, Mysore.

¶22

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, The Karnataka Housing Board, 9^th Main, Swimming Pool Main Road, Saraswathipuram, Mysore Division, Mysore.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(By Shri. M.N. Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4

¶25

Shri. D. Nagaraj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1)

¶26

¶27

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 07.04.2012 on vide Annexure-F to the writ petition passed by 1^st respondent with respect to land bearing Sy.No.215/1, i.e., serial No.1 in the notification.

¶28

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶29

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The learned Counsel for the petitioner reports the death

¶32

of the first petitioner and files a memo that the other petitioners are the legal representatives of the first petitioner. Hence, the memo is placed on record. The petitioner is permitted to amend

¶33

the cause title.

¶34

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also files

¶35

another memo to claim that there is a bore well existent on the land in question and this has not been taken into consideration at the time of acquisition. Primarily, the petitioner was required to demonstrate that the petitioner was cultivating two crops over the land and that in terms of the Circular issued by the State Government, any land on which two crops have been grown per year would be exempt from acquisition proceedings. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that there is a bore well, which was the source of irrigation and the land was independently irrigated, has

¶36

¶37

produced a letter from an Engineer attached to the Hemavathi River Canal, to state that the land falls within the area, which is irrigated by the Hemavathi River Canal. However, it is seen that the petitioner is not in a position to demonstrate that he was in fact, growing two crops on the land in question. Therefore, the primary ground on which the petition is filed is only to assert that the land was completely irrigated land, on which two crops were being grown per year. In the absence of any material in this regard, which has never been produced either before the acquiring authority or before this court, there is no substance in the present petition and therefore, is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvathamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nova Medical Centers Private Limited Vs Nil

Sri Munianjanappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Bangalore on Line (India) Ltd. Vs Nil

Far East Broad Casting Associates of India Vs Bangalore Development Authority

P M Mohammed Ali Vs the State of Karnataka

S C T College of Education (B.Ed.) Vs State of Karnataka