Dismissed

Sri Syed Munir v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2023WP/9840/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging proceedings in the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court and seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, finding the petition infructuous based on a prior judgment of the same court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it had become infructuous due to the findings in a co-ordinate bench judgment.

Sri Syed Munir Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 9840 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^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. 9840 OF 2019 (KLGP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SYED MUNIR S/O PEERSAB AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF

¶11

KEREKOPPA VILLAGE

¶12

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

¶13

BHIMANA KONE POST SAGAR TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SMT. JAHNAVI M – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER SAGAR RANE, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. N. KUMAR – AGA FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶21

¶22

WP No. 9840 of 2019

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN LGC(P) NO.798/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION SPECIAL COURT AND THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2018 AS PER ANENXURE-H & IN LGC(P) NO.798/2018 AS WITHOUT COMPETENCE AND JURISDICTION AND OTHERWISE BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID; B) DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING PROHIBITION ACT, 2011 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ULTRA VIRUS TO ARTICLE 15, ARTICLE 19 AND ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS ANNEXURE-J.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Learned counsel Smt.Jahnavi.M. for petitioner is

¶27

present before the Court physically and represents Sri Chandrakant R.Goulay who is on record.

¶28

Learned AGA is directed to take notice for respondents.

¶29

In this writ petition challenging the initiation of proceedings in LGC(P) No.798/2018 before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court and whereby seeking quashment of the aforesaid proceedings and so

¶30

¶31

WP No. 9840 of 2019

¶32

also, quashment of the order dated 22.05.2018 as per Annexure-H. In this writ petition it is further sought for to declare that provisions of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 as unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the constitution of India.

¶33

It is specifically stated in the writ petition that Section 9 of the Act which permits the Special Court to take cognizance of the proceedings on the basis that any allegation of land grabbing is sufficient to take cognizance. This is very peculiar enactment and one of its kind as no other statute deals with the taking of cognizance on a mere allegation. However, the cognizance it is the domain with the Court to deal with the matter and the same shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶34

However, the issues involved in this writ petition has been addressed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.47747/2017 dated 19.01.2021. Learned AGA submits that this writ petition does not have any force to call for interference of the grounds urged therein

¶35

¶36

WP No. 9840 of 2019

¶37

for consideration. Therefore, we are of the opinion that,

¶38

in terms of the order passed in the aforementioned writ petition in W.P.No.47747/2017, this writ petition has become infructuous. In terms of the aforesaid reasons

¶39

and findings, we proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Writ petition is dismissed as having become

¶42

infructuous.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sd/JUDGE