Dismissed

Parasmal. M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2023WP/699/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution directing respondents to follow land acquisition procedures and obtain necessary consent before acquiring their properties for road widening. Relying on assurances from local body counsel that properties would not be interfered with without following the due process of law, the Court disposed of the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Parasmal. M Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.699 OF 2023(LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PARASMAL. M, S/O LATE MANGILAL K, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT RAJATHA IRRIGATION, M.G. ROAD, MUDIGERE - 577 132. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶9

DR. G.S. SHIVPRAKASH, S/O G. SHESHADRI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT A.J. COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, MUDIGERE - 577 132. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶10

PRAKASH CHAND JAIN, S/O LATE J NEMICHAND, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, M.G. ROAD, MUDIGERE - 577 132. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶11

HEMARAJ JAIN, S/O LATE SOHANRAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NAVRATNA FINANCE, M.G. ROAD, MUDIGERE - 577 132. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶12

CHANDRAKANTHA H.C. S/O LATE H.M. CHANDRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶13

¶14

R/AT HALASE ESTATE, HALASE, MUDIGERE - 577 132. CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶20

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CHIKKAMAGALURU SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶21

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, MUDIGERE SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKAGALURU - 577 101.

¶22

TAHSILDAR, MUDIGERE TALUK, MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶23

CHIEF OFFICER MUDIGERE TOWN MUNICIPALITY, MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. A NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶26

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FOLLOW THE LAND ACQUISITION PROCEDURE IN CASE ON ANY ROAD WIDENING BY ANY OF THEM IN M.G.ROAD, MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE ACTION IN CASE OF NECESSITY, IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTIES, ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE LAND ACQUISITION ENACTMENTS.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court

¶31

with the following prayers:

¶32

a) “Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order of direction as the case may be directing the respondents to follow the land acquisition procedure in case on any road widening by any of them in M.G.Road, Mudigere, Chikkamagaluru District.

¶33

b) Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction as the case may be directing the respondents to take action in case of necessity, in respect of Schedule properties, only in accordance with the provisions of the applicable land acquisition enactments.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the Petitioners regardless

¶35

of the prayers, now submits that there is a threat of

¶36

¶37

interference by the Respondent – Local Body and therefore, his clients should be protected consistent with the constitutional guarantee to property enacted in Article 300A.

¶38

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Local Body assures the Court that the property comprised in the subject Sale Deeds standing in the names of Petitioners would not be interfered with while widening the M.G.Road, in Mudigere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. He also submits that in the event, they need any private property, they would take the same with due the process of law.

¶39

In view of the above assurance, this Petition is

disposed off.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Bsv

Parasmal. M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parasmal. M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs Sri Venkat Raman Kaluvakolanu Ex Director

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Karnataka State Industrial Investment

The Official Liquidator Vs Sri Venkat Ramana Kaluvakolanu

M/S International Asset Reconstruction Vs the Official Liquidator

Sri Kuberappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs State of Karnataka