Dismissed

M S Doreswamy v. the Tahasildhar

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023WP/22518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 as unconstitutional. Relying on a previous decision in WP No.47747 of 2017 which addressed the same issue, the court held that the current petition was devoid of merits and dismissed it, directing the petitioner to file a memo of dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merits, and the petitioner was directed to file a memo to that effect.

M S Doreswamy Vs the Tahasildhar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22518 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD 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. 22518 OF 2019 (KLGP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M S DORESWAMY

¶11

S/O. R M SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶12

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

¶13

SMT. GURUMALLAMMA D/O. LATE PATEL CHIKKAMADAPPA, W/O. R M SOMANNA,

¶14

AGE 75 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE, CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DIST-571342.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. BALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE TAHASILDHAR CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.

¶20

¶21

WP No. 22518 of 2019

¶22

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571313.

¶23

NANJUNDASHETY S/O. SIDDASHETTY, MAJOR

¶24

PUTTALINGASHETTY S/O. SIDDASHETTY, MAJOR

¶25

SIDDASHETTY S/O. SIDDASHETTY, MAJOR

¶26

MAHADEVASHETTY S/O. BASAVASHETTY, MAJOR

¶27

NANJUNDASHETTY S/O. BASAVASHETTY, MAJOR

¶28

CHINNASWAMYSHETTY S/O. SUBBASHETTY, MAJOR

¶29

RACHASHETTY S/O. RANGASHETTY, MAJOR

¶30

ALL ARE R/OF MALLUPURA VILLAGE, CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK

¶31

AND DIST 571342. RESPONDENTS ARE LEADERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF KUMBARA COMMUNITY. (I.E RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 9)

¶32

¶33

WP No. 22518 of 2019

¶34

THE CHIEF ENGINEER NEERAVARI SOUTH, CAUVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, NEW SAYYAJIRAO ROAD, MYSURU 570014

¶35

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KABINI CHANNEL DIVISION, CAUVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD, NANJANGUDU, MYSURU DIST 571 302

¶36

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER NO. 2, CHIKKAHOLE DAM, RECONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION, ATTUGULIPURA-571127, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DIST

¶37

A L PARASHIVAMURTHY S/O. A L LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶38

SMT. NEELAMMA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶39

RESPONDENTS NO. 13 & 14 ARE R/AT ALUR VILLAGE PIN 571117, CHANDAKAVADI HOBLI, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DIST

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI.N.KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2

¶42

SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R8, R13 & R14 R9 & R10 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R11 & R12)

¶43

¶44

WP No. 22518 of 2019

¶45

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT, 2011 [KARNATAKA ACT, 38/2014] AS ULTRA VIRUS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND ETC.,

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Learned Counsel Sri Balappa for the petitioner is

¶49

present before the Court physically and is representing Sri Rajashekhar K., learned Counsel who is on record.

¶50

However, the office notings reveal that steps have to be taken in respect of legal representatives of deceased respondent No.9.

¶51

Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 viz., Sri M.Kumar, is present before the Court physically.

¶52

¶53

WP No. 22518 of 2019

¶54

Learned Counsel Sri K.S.Bheemaiah, for

¶55

respondents No.11 and 12 is also present before the Court physically.

¶56

However, this writ petition is filed challenging the validity of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011.

¶57

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid issue has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.47747 of 2017 on 19.01.2021. Therefore, the issue relating to this writ petition has also been addressed in the aforesaid writ petition, challenging the validity of the provision of law.

¶58

Keeping in view the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition does not survive for consideration and therefore, this Court need not dwell in detail with regard to the said aspect. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.

¶59

¶60

WP No. 22518 of 2019

¶61

In the meanwhile, learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶62

is directed to file a memo to that effect.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

JT/-

M S Doreswamy v. the Tahasildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Doreswamy v. the Tahasildhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sukananda Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayara K S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M B Appanna Vs the State of Karnataka

High Court of Karnataka Vs Sri.H.v.Basappa

Sri. P Ramachandra Reddy Vs Mrs. P Sosamma Nair

Sri B Narayanswamy Vs M Somashekar