Disposed

Sri Ramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/14376/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenging the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act 2011 as ultra vires the Constitution and seeking quashing of a notice is disposed of as infructuous because a co-ordinate bench had already considered the identical issues in a previous petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous due to a prior decision on identical issues by a co-ordinate bench.

Sri Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 14376 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 14376 OF 2020 (KLGP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI RAMAPPA S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

VENKATACHALAPATHI S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶13

SARASAMMA W/O VENKATACHALAPATHI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE R/A VANARASI GRAMA MUDAVADI POST HOOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SMT. SUNANDA SARKAR – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S REDDY - ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 14376 of 2020

¶21

R RAMESH S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED MAJOR R/A VANARASI GRAMA MUDUVADI P O HOOLURU HOBLI KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL – HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. K. S. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY – ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶24

THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) DECLARE THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT 2011 (KARNATAKA ACT 38/2014) AS ULTR VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 20, 21 & 300-A; B) DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT 2011 (KARNATAKA ACT 38/2014) IN NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PETITIONERS CASE NO.LGC(P) NO.2077/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, E AND F BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT BENGALURU; C) QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD.16.10.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, E & F ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT 2011 IN CASE LGC(P) NO.2077/2017.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

WP No. 14376 of 2020

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Learned counsel Smt.Sunanda Sarkar for the

¶30

petitioners is present before the Court physically and represents Sri Rahul S.Reddy who is on record.

¶31

Learned HCGP Smt.Rashmi Patel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri K.S.Mallikarjuna Reddy for respondent No.3 are also present before the Court physically.

¶32

In this writ petition the petitioners have sought for a writ declaring the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (Karnataka Act 38 of 2014) as ultra vires of the Constitution of India being violative of Articles 14, 20, 21 and 300-A. Further, to declare that the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition act, 2011 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the petitioners’ case in LGC (P) No.2077/2017 before the Special Court constituted under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, Bengaluru and a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the

¶33

¶34

WP No. 14376 of 2020

¶35

impugned notice dated 16.10.2019 vide Annexures D, E and F.

¶36

In the synopsis and brief of facts of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioners are the owners of land bearing sy.No.5 for an extent of 1 acre 35 guntas of Venkatapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar district. The Government granted 1 acre 35 guntas in favour of Narayanappa on 19.11.1956 and subsequently, sold the said property in favour of Venkataswamy. The second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the Land Grabbing Court, Bengaluru and the said Court issued notices to the petitioners to appear before the Court on 14.11.2022. These are all the grounds taken in the writ petition seeking intervention.

¶37

However, the issues involved in this writ petition

¶38

has been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.47747/2017 dated 19.01.2021. Therefore, it is said that there is no substance in this writ petition as the

¶39

¶40

WP No. 14376 of 2020

¶41

same has become infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

DKB

Sri Ramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ramappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Victor Veigas Vs Smt Rekha Prabhu

Sri Girish Bhat Vs Nil

Eshwara. M. v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Latha B R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Ayaz Pasha Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Sri H K Basavegowda Vs the State of Karnataka