Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S. KAMAL J
Karibasappa S/o Holiyappa Duggavathi – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek quashing of land acquisition notifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners claim acquisition is arbitrary and lacks necessity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. state defends acquisition based on consent from majority landowners. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. counsel for petitioners argue against non-consideration of objections. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court considers previous consent and usage of land. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final notifications and prior consents reviewed. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. court dismisses writ petition, upholding acquisition. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
ORDER :
1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking quash of notifications dated 20.10.2012 issued under Sections 1 (3) and 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 as per Annexure “A” and “B” respectively as well as the Notification dated 06.09.2013 issued under Section 28 (4) of the said Act as per Annexure "C" in so far as the lands of the petitioners are concerned.
2. Before adverting to the facts of the case, necessary to note that originally four petitioners filed the above writ petition. Subsequently, by memos dated 12.07.2016 and 20.01.2020 petitioner No.4 and petitioner No.1 sought dismissal of
Acquisition of agricultural land is permissible if a majority consents, even if some landowners contest, provided legal processes are observed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the Final Notification is issued under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, the land vests in the State, and objections ....
An argument to contrary blurs boundary lines of schemes of acquisition envisaged under these statutes and thus, runs counter to scope of section 28 of 1966 Act.
Administrative bodies must provide reasoned orders when rejecting objections, ensuring fair deliberation, especially in land acquisition cases.
The court affirmed that compliance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is essential for valid land acquisition, particularly regarding notifications and public interest.
Acquisition proceedings are invalid if statutory requirements for notice and consideration of objections are not met, emphasizing the necessity of procedural equity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and laches in challenging acquisition proceedings can result in the dismissal of a writ petition, and the provisions contained under Ord....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
