Dismissed

M Gopala Krishna Rao v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jun 2024WP/1616/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeking quashal of orders against various land revenue authorities was dismissed entirely because the Court had already dismissed it against respondent No.4 on 24th March 2023 for failure to serve notice, leaving nothing to decide.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is dismissed because it had already been dismissed against Respondent No.4 in a previous order dated 24th March, 2023.

M Gopala Krishna Rao Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:20665 WP NO.1616 OF 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.1616 OF 2015 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO S/O LATE M. RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT SHIVAKRIPA, ADKA, MATTU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT 576 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI (KAUP HOBLI), UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 101. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶17

THE TAHASILDAR UDUPI TALUK UDUPI - 576 101.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:20665 WP NO.1616 OF 2015

¶20

HARIPRASAD S/O LATE M. KRISHNACHARYA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT DODDANAGUDDE, KUNJIBETTU,

¶21

UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 102.

¶22

SRI. VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE MATTU VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 101. REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, M. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO.

¶23

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS-CUM- THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA. K.B., AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R6; SRI. VYASA RAO K.S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28^TH NOVEMBER, 2011 PASSED IN LRY-99-320-TRI-151/78-79 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND DECLARE THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25^TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AS WELL AS THE ORDER DAED 19^TH NOVEMBER, 2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-P PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AND TO DECLARE THESE ORDERS AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ALSO WITHOUT JURISDICTION; AND ETC.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:20665 WP NO.1616 OF 2015

¶29

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

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Heard Sri. Vigneshwara U., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Rajendra K.B., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 6; and Sri. Vyasa Rao K.S., learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

¶32

This Court on 24^th March, 2023 passed the following

¶33

order:

¶34

"Petitioner has failed to take out hand summons and to take process of service of notice on respondent No.4 in terms of the order dated 08.02.2023.

¶35

Hence, Writ Petition as against respondent No.4 stands dismissed."

¶36

On perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the petitioner is assailing order dated 28^th November, 2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2; order dated 25^th September, 2012 (Annexure-N) and order dated 19^th November, 2013 (Annexure-P) passed by the respondent No.6.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:20665 WP NO.1616 OF 2015

¶39

Having taken note of the factual aspects on record and the grievance of the petitioner is against the respondent No.4 and further, as this Court has already dismissed the writ petition against the respondent No.4, nothing survives in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

ARK

M Gopala Krishna Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Gopala Krishna Rao v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt. Mohini Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

H. C. Boraiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Vanaja Shedthi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Niroop D J Vs the Regional Joint Director