Dismissed

Sri. Subrahamanya Jingade v. the Secretary ( Land Acquisition)

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2024WP/11184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this writ petition challenging a 1992-1993 land acquisition. The court held that the land was acquired for public purposes and can be utilized for other public purposes. Petitioner failed to explain the inordinate 29-year delay. Dismissal was ordered.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the acquisition order of 1992 and consequential orders was dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Sri. Subrahamanya Jingade Vs the Secretary ( Land… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19604 WP No. 11184 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.11184 OF 2022 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SUBRAHAMANYA JINGADE S/O SHANKROJI JINGADE VINAYA TAILORING MATERIALS AZAD ROAD, 1ST CROSS SAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE SECRETARY ( LAND ACQUISITION) REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB-DIVISION SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA-577 401.

¶15

THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SAGAR,

¶16

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19604 WP No. 11184 of 2022

¶18

KUMARA S/O NAGARAJA JINGADE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MARKET ROAD SAGAR TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.

¶19

BHARATHI D/O. NAGARAJA JINGADE W/O. VIJAYAKUMARA R/AT NANDINI MILK SHOP SIDDAIAH ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶20

SHUBA D/O. NAGARAJA JINGADE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT VIJAYALAXMI TALKIES, B.H. ROAD KADOOR, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶21

JYOTHI D/O. NAGARAJA JINGADE W/O. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT K.H.B. COLONY, FORT AREA BELLARY.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4.)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER IN LAC.2.91-92 DATED 22.10.92, AT ANNEXURE-G, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN KAM.E.49.BHU SWA

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19604 WP No. 11184 of 2022

¶26

SHI.92 DATED 23.01.1993 AT ANNEXURE-H AND TO QUASH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS AND ENTRIES IN REVENUE AND OTHER RECORDS, ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDRES, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged the acquisition made in the year 1992-93. It is not in dispute that preliminary notification is dated 22.10.1992 and final notification is dated 23.01.1993 Subsequently, possession of the land has been taken by the concerned Authorities and award amount has also been deposited and the same has been availed of by the petitioner. The acquisition is challenged solely on the ground that the land is not utilized for the purpose for which it has been acquired.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the land which is the subject

¶31

matter of the writ petition has been acquired for public purposes. In catena of judgments, this Court as well as

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:19604 WP No. 11184 of 2022

¶34

Hon'ble Apex Court has held when the acquisition happens in accordance with law, the land may not be utilized for the exact purpose for which it has been acquired and may

¶35

be utilized for other public purpose. Further, the acquisition having been completed in the year 1993 and writ petition being filed in the year 2022, there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition which has not been explained.

¶36

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is

¶37

hereby dismissed .

¶38

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

VMB

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Sri. Subrahamanya Jingade v. the Secretary ( Land Acquisition)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Subrahamanya Jingade v. the Secretary ( Land Acquisition)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Srinivas Vs Smt.v.Vijayalakshmi

Sri. Kantharaju Vs Sri. Udayabhaskar

Asha Kumar Vs Smt. Manmohan Kaur Ajith

Bar Association (Registered), Sagar, Vs the Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandrappa Vs Smt. Shyamalamma