Allowed

Smt Madhamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2023WP/5332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge quashed acquisition notifications regarding the petitioner's jointly owned land, relying on coordinate judgments granting identical relief and the principle of treating like cases alike under Article 14.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned acquisition notifications so far as the petitioners property is concerned; costs to the petitioner.

Smt Madhamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 5332 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5332 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT MADHAMMA, W/O LATE SRI BORE GOWDA, D/O LATE SRI MADE GOWDA AND SMT NINGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT B.G.PURA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, DABBAHALLI, NETKALLU, MALAVALLI, MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571437 (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001, REPT BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI LAKSHMI BAI ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1; SRI.T.P.VIVKANANDA FOR R2 & R3)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5332 of 2023

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS/NOTIFICATION AS PER ANNX-D, VIDE NO.LAQ(1)/CR/79/2005-06, DTD 09.10.2006, ISSUED BY THE R-2, IN RESPECT OF THE LAND IN SURVEY NO.93 (OLD SY.NO.69), MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 10 ACRES, YADAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK AND DIST, JOINTLY OWNED BY THE PETITIONER, IS ABANDONED BY THE RESPONDENTS, SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERN ONLY AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The subject matter of this Writ Petition is substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.30739/2015, etc., between C.MAHADEVU vs. State OF KARNATAKA AND

¶23

OTHERS , disposed off on 4.9.2015. In Para 6 of the said judgment, relief to the litigant has been granted as under:

¶24

“ 6. In the result, the petitions are allowed. It is hereby declared that the acquisition proceeding pursuant to the impugned notification dated 9.10.2006 has since lapsed insofar as it relates to land measuring 3 acres 33 guntas in Sy.No.73 new No.73/1 of Yadahalli village, Jayapura Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District in W.P.No.30739/2015 and 1 acres 23.08 guntas of Lingabudhi village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore taluk in W.P.No.10916/2015.”

¶25

¶26

WP No. 5332 of 2023

¶27

Similar relief has been granted to the other land owners

¶28

too by other Coordinate Benches as well in W.P.No.43463/2011 & W.P.No.47098/2013.

¶29

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigants as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶30

In view of the above, Writ Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned acquisition notifications, so far as the petitioners property is concerned, it is freed from acquisition process.

¶31

Costs made easy.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

cbc

Smt Madhamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Madhamma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.K.Prabhudas Vs the Commissioner

K.Vasudeva Raju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Fayaz @ H Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Bellary Spinning and Weaving Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nil

M/S Diagram Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nil

M/S Bangalore Batteries Pvt. Ltd. (in Liqn) Vs Nil