Quashed

Thotada Narasegowda v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021WP/1754/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed a preliminary acquisition notification under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972, noting the authorities had explicitly abandoned the acquisition process.

What did the court decide?

The preliminary notification dated 11.05.1990 insofar as it concerned the petitioner's property was quashed and the petition was disposed of.

Thotada Narasegowda Vs the State of Karnataka by Its — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1754 OF 2018 (LA-HS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . THOTADA NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE. THIMMARAYAPPA,

¶9

2 . NARASIMHA MURATHY K T AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE. THIMMAIAH,

¶10

3 . K H NARAYANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,

¶11

BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT NO. KALLURU VILLAGE, BACHENAHATTI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI A.SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR P1, P3 AND P4 PETITION IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN AS AGAINST PETITIONER NO.2)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARMTNE OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001

¶17

¶18

2 .	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 571511
3 .	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA- 571511
4 .	TAHASILDAR MAGADI, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT- 571511
5 .	THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER RAMAGANAGAR SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT -571511
6 .	ZILLA PANACHAYATH RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
7 .	THE TALUK PANCHAYATH MAGADI TLAUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
8 .	GRAMA PANCHAYATH KALLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TLAUK, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, BY ITS SECRETARY.
9.	SRI.THIRUMALAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O HANUMANARASIAH
10.	SRI. VEERANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O NARASIMHAIAH
11.	SRI.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O GANGANNA
12.	SRI.RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YARS S/O HANUMANARASAIAH
13.	SRI.RAMESH
	AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
	S/O HANUMANARASAIAH

¶19

¶20

RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 13 ARE R/AT NO. KALLURU VILLAGE, BACHENAHATTI POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571511.

¶21

.. RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI.SOMAYAJI, ADV. FOR R6-R8 SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R9-R13)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.5.1990 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3(1) OF THE KARNATAKA ACQUSITION OF LAND FOR GRANT OF HOUSE SITES ACT 1972 AS LAPSED INSOFAR AS THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED ANNEXURE-C.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have challenged the validity of the Notification dated 11.05.1990 issued under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of House Sites Act, 1972 ('Act' for short) as lapsed as insofar as the schedule properties is concerned.

¶27

The petitioners state that they are the owners

¶28

of land in Sy.No.1/1 of Kallur village, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District and the said land

¶29

¶30

was proposed to be acquired by respondent No.2 under Section 3(1) of the aforesaid Act.

¶31

The petitioners submit that preliminary notification came to be issued as per Notification dated 11.05.1990. It is submitted that despite lapse of eighteen years till filing of the present writ petition, no steps were taken to further the acquisition process and accordingly, they submit that acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed.

¶32

Statement of objections have been filed by respondents No.1 to 5 and it is specifically asserted that the respondent-Authorities have abandoned the acquisition process as is made out from the averments of para 2 of the Statement of objections filed on 9.07.2019 which reads as hereinunder:

¶33

"2. It is respectfully submitted that the Respondent-Authorities have issued preliminary notification with regard to the acquisition of lands by Notification No.RHS(2) 87 and thereafter, the Respondent- authorities have not taken any decision with regard to the process of issuing final notification as contemplated under the Karnataka Acquisition of Land for Grant of

¶34

¶35

House Sites Act, 1972. It is further submitted that the aforesaid preliminary notification was issued for the purpose of allotment of sites to the homeless people on Kallur village, Magadi taluk and since no further action was taken, the Respondent authorities have abandoned the land, as such."

¶36

There is no representation on behalf of other

¶37

respondents. It appears that some of the intended beneficiaries have been impleaded at their instance as additional respondents. However, it must be noted that the site holders cannot have a say in the present matter as the Government has specifically taken a stand that the land acquisition proceedings have been abandoned.

¶38

However, taking note of the stand of the respondent-Authorities as reflected in the statement of objections referred above, it is a clear case where the respondent-Authorities have not proceeded with the acquisition process and have, in fact, specifically asserted that the acquisition process has been abandoned, the impugned notification as regards the petitioner property are to be set aside.

¶39

¶40

In light of the admitted facts, the preliminary Notification at Annexure-C insofar as the petitioners' property in Sy.No.1/1, Kallur village, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi taluk, Ramanagar District measuring 2 acres and 2 guntas including Kharab of 5 guntas, is quashed.

¶41

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Thotada Narasegowda v. the State of Karnataka by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thotada Narasegowda v. the State of Karnataka by Its

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

M/S Trinco Property Vs Mr. N.R. Sumanth Kumar

Rahim Khan Vs H Mushtari Jan

Ruptub Solutions Private Limited Vs Radhe Shyam Gautam HUF

Saudi Telecom Company Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Ramesh Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka