Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 declaring land acquisition proceedings as lapsed and free from vesting. Court noted earlier withdrawals and lack of representation, dismissing the petition due to lack of interest and purpose.
Petition dismissed as the petitioners show no interest in prosecuting the matter after previous withdrawals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 37671 OF 2016 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
S/O. LATE NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE.
S/O. LATE RUDREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE.
Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF CHIKKA KURUBARAHALLI-VILLAGE, JYOTHI NAGARA-POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU-TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 102.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA N .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R4., SRI.A.RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, DECLARING THAT, THE ENTIRE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE FINAL NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 6 SL. NO. KAM E : BHU SWACHI 96, DATED:18.12.1996 ISSUED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 16(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 BEARING SL.NO.: BHUSWADHINA 6:98-99 DTD:21.09.2000 AS PER ANNEXURE-C IN RESPECT OF THE P-1 LAND BEARING SY NO.321/9P, MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 01 ACRE 04-.8 GUNTAS, THE 2ND PETITIONER'S LAND BEARING SY NO.321/9P, (321/9P2) MEASURING 01 ACRE 04-8 GUNTAS, THE P-3 LAND BEARING SY NO.321/12 MEASURING 25 GUNTAS AND THE P-4 LAND BEARING SY NO.321/7 AND 321/08, MEASURING 16 GUNTAS ALL THE ABOVE SAID LAND ARE SITUATED AT HIREMAGALURU, KASABA HOBLI. CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT, AS LAPSED IN VIEW OF SECTION 24(2) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, AND THERE IS NO VESTING OF THE PETITIONER SAID LAND AND IT IS FREE FROM ACQUISITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appears for the petitioners.
the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 by filing a memo dated
25.09.2018 had sought for dismissal of the petition as withdrawn. Taking note of the resistance by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 6 this Court had passed the following orders:
The petitioners in W.P.Nos.3767137673/2016 seek leave of this Court for withdrawing the writ petitions conditionally. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 opposes the grant of leave for unconditional withdrawal stating that the petitioners have abused process of Court.
2. Although the alleged abuse of Court is a serious matter, still after noticing all the facts and circumstances of the case, leave is granted to withdraw the writ petition unconditionally with a warning that no scope shall be given for such allegations. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Interim order, if any granted earlier shall stand dissolved.
by the respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 had earlier filed a W.P.No.11787/2010 which was dismissed. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal order, he had preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No. 33/2014, respondent No.4 herein was
the appellant in the said appeal had filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the appeal. Accordingly, the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the Divisional Bench vide order dated 10.09.2018.
interest in prosecuting the matter.
Sd/JUDGE
RL
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as the petitioners have withdrawn or lost interest in prosecuting the matter.
Whether the petitioners had previously sought unconditional withdrawal which was opposed by the respondent counsel.
5 provisions across 4 enactments
C. N. Sadashivappa
C.R. Yogesh
C.S. Gangadhar
Huliappa
State of Karnataka
The Deputy Commissioner Chikkamagaluru District
M.G.S. Kamal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
