Dismissed

Eshwara. M. v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2023WP/14723/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 as unconstitutional under Articles 14, 20, 21, and 300-A. The court held that the issues have been addressed by a coordinate bench and are no longer res integra, dismissing the writ petition without detailed consideration.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the issues were no longer res integra having been addressed by a coordinate bench.

Eshwara. M. v. Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 14723 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^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. 14723 OF 2019 (KLGP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

ESHWARA. M. V. S/O VENKATAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT MUNDAKODU KODLU VILLAGE HEGGODU POST THIRTHALLI TLAUK

¶12

SHVIAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577432.

¶13

SURESH M V

¶14

S/O VENAKTAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT MUNDAKODU KODLU VILLAGE HEGGODU POST THIRTHALLI TLAUK SHVIAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577432.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY Ms. BHANUPRIYA – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA D P - ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 5TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY.

¶19

2 - WP No. 14723 of 2019

¶20

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577201.

¶21

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA – 577432.

¶22

THE TAHASILDHAR THIRTHAHALLI TALUK THIRTHAHALLI – 577432.

¶23

DEVENDRA GOWDA S/O LINGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT MUNDAKODU, KODLU VILLAGE HEGGODU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHVIAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577432.

¶24

NARAYANA S/O CHINNAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT MUNDAKODU, KODLU VILLAGE HEGGODU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK SHVIAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577432.

¶25

CHANDRA S/O THAMMAIAH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MUNDAKODU, KODLU VILLAGE HEGGODU POST THIRTHAJALLI TALUK SHVIAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577432.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. A R SHARADAMBA – AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; R-5, R-6 AND R-7 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

¶29

WP No. 14723 of 2019

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: DECLARE THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT 2011 (KARNATAKA ACT 38 OF 2014) AS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BEING VIOLATING THE ARTICLE 14, 20, 21 AND 300-A AS PER ANNX-K; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.02.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT, BENGLAURU IN LGC(T) 889/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-M.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 as ultravires to the Constitution of India violating Articles 14, 20, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India vide Annexure-“K”. The further direction is seeking for a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru, in LGC(T) No.889/2018 vide Annexure-“M” dated 13.02.2019 and so also seeking such other reliefs.

¶34

Learned counsel Ms. Bhanupriya is present before Court physically and represents the learned counsel Shri Prasanna D.P. who is on record for the petitioners. In this matter, the learned AGA for R1 to R4 is present before Court

¶35

¶36

WP No. 14723 of 2019

¶37

physically. Process having been served on Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7, they have remained absent.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners has facilitated synopsis. The fourth respondent being the Tahsildar, has regularized the unauthorized occupation of land and issued saguvali chit in the name of the mother of petitioners in respect of 2 acres 34 guntas. The Sy.No.27 is situated in the limits of Guddekoppa village wherein the Village Accountant had submitted his report to the fourth respondent for removal of the encroachments in Sy.No.27. The petitioners herein initiated civil suit before the Court of the Civil Judge, Thirthahalli in Shivamogga District. The said suit was initiated by the petitioners and the same was transferred from that Court to the Jurisdictional Special Court for trial. These are the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners by initiating this writ petition against the respondents for seeking intervention. However, this writ petition is filed challenging the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and also seeking intervention on the premise that the same violates Articles 14, 20, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. But

¶39

¶40

WP No. 14723 of 2019

¶41

Article 21 relates to protection of life and liberty. It is equally applicable to both the parties. Similarly, Article 14 relates to equality before law.

¶42

The issues which have been challenged in this writ petition has been extensively addressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.47747/2017 dated 19.01.2021 and hence, the issue is no longer res integra .

¶43

Consequently, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed

¶44

as the relief sought for in the petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Eshwara. M. v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eshwara. M. v. Vs 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. G S Rekha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mohammed Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Tapas Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nanjunde Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Dhanjaya Vs the Forest Range Officer

M D Ramaiah Vs State of Karnataka