1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

AND

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

W.P. NO.7910/2020 (KLGP)

BETWEEN:

SRINIVAS SHETTY @ C.S. SRINIVASA

S/O SUBRAMANYA SHETTY

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

R/AT #173, OMKARESHWAR NAGAR

KEREKONDAPURA VILLAGE

RAMPURA POST, DEVA SAMUDRA

MOLAKALMURU TALUK

CHITRADURGA - 577 540.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001

REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

CHITRADURGA DISTRICT

CHITRADURGA - 577 701.

3.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION

CHITRADURGA - 577 701.

4.

THE TAHSILDAR

MOLAKALMUR, CHITRADURGA

DISTRICT - 577 701.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. P.B. ACHHAPPA, AGA)

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA ACT NO.38 OF 2014 IS ULTRA

VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, THE SUBSTANTIAL

PROVISIONS BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, ARTICLE

20, ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J, MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the

constitutional validity of the Karnataka Land Grabbing

Prohibition Act, 2011 (Karnataka Act 38 of 2014).

Prayers as sought for by the petitioner are as under:

"(a) Declare that Karnataka Act No.38 of

2014 is ultra vires the Constitution of

India, the substantial provisions being

violative of Article 14, Article 20, Article

21 and Article 300A of the Constitution of

India.

(b) Declare that Section 9(1) with

reference to conferring the jurisdiction on

Special Court under the Act on an

application

made

by

any

person is

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India and also Section 4(3) and Section

9(5)(b) of the Karnataka Act No.38 of 2014

are violative of Articles 20 and 21 of the

Constitution of India.

3

(c) issue a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate

writ,

order

or

direction

quashing

the

impugned

proceedings

pending on the file of the Karnataka Land

Grabbing

Prohibition

Special

Court,

Bengaluru,

Karnataka

in

L.G.C

(G)

No.1988/2018 initiated on the basis of

the complaint filed by Respondent No.4

dated 12.09.2018 found at Annexure-F1

and the impugned notice issued by the

Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition

Special

Court,

Bengaluru,

Karnataka

dated

26.02.2020

in

L.G.C(G)

No.1988/2018 found at Annexure-F and

allow this writ petition with costs and

grant such other reliefs as this Hon9ble

Court

deems

fit

to

grant

in

the

circumstances of the case, in the interest

of justice and equity.=

2.

Sri.K.Raghavendra

Rao,

learned

counsel

appearing for petitioner would fairly submit that in view

of law declared by this Court in W.P.No.47747/2017 and

connected matters disposed of on 19.01.2021, his prayer

sought for in the writ petition would not survive for

consideration. However, he would hasten to add that

while disposing of this writ petition, directions issued by

this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions may be applied

to the case on hand and jurisdictional Court may be

directed to consider the claim of petitioner in the light of

4

direction given in W.P.No.47747/2017 on 19.01.2021 at

paragraph-175(x).

3.

Having heard Sri.K.Raghavendra Rao, learned

counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.P.B.Achhappa,

learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for

respondents who is on advance notice, we notice that

grounds urged in the writ petition are disputed question

of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence,

we desist from undertaking such an exercise namely,

examining the claim of petitioner.

4.

Be that as it may. Directions iss