Ramesh Vs. The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary and Others

Ramesh vs The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jul 04, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1192509

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1192509
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee &Amp; P.S. Dinesh Kumar
Decided On: Jul 04, 2017
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 1366 of 2017 (LA-KIADB)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Karnataka High Court Act - Section 4 -

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh

Respondent

The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary and Others

Excerpt

karnataka high court act - section 4 -(prayer: this appeal is filed under section 4 of the karnataka high court act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition no.34328/2012 dated: 05.02.2013.) order on i.a. no.i of 2017 1. the appeals are barred by limitation. the delay is of 1,432 days. 2. mr.vivek holla, learned high court government pleader, appears for the respondent no.1. mr.ashok n.nayak, learned advocate, appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 3. after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in time. 4. therefore, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the application, being i.a. no.1 of 2017, stands allowed. 5. we make no order as to costs. 6. the writ petitioner is the appellant before us. 7. for the acquisition of the disputed property, a preliminary notification was issued on july 15, 1994, followed by the final notification on september 20, 1995. 8. the petitioner-appellant purchased the property on july 10, 2007. therefore, he is a subsequent purchaser after the preliminary notification. 9. the hon'ble single judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that a subsequent purchaser could not challenge the acquisition. 10. mr.jayakumar s.patil, learned senior advocate, in support of the appeal, submits that they are not challenging the acquisition in that sense, but their case is that the acquisition stood lapsed because of the delay and non-passing of the award. 11. mr.patil moves a memorandum seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition, inasmuch as the writ petitioner proposes to file a comprehensive writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition stood lapsed. 12. as prayed for by mr.jayakumar s.patil, we dispose of this appeal by permitting him to withdraw writ petition no.34328 of 2012, with liberty to the writ petitioner to file a comprehensive writ petition, in accordance with law. 13. the order impugned stands.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the Order Passed in the Writ Petition No.34328/2012 Dated: 05.02.2013.)

ORDER ON I.A. NO.I OF 2017

1. The appeals are barred by limitation. The delay is of 1,432 days.

2. Mr.Vivek Holla, learned High Court Government Pleader, appears for the respondent no.1. Mr.Ashok N.Nayak, learned advocate, appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3.

3. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in time.

4. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the application, being I.A. No.1 of 2017, stands allowed.

5. We make no order as to costs.

6. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.

7. For the acquisition of the disputed property, a preliminary notification was issued on July 15, 1994, followed by the final notification on September 20, 1995.

8. The petitioner-appellant purchased the property on July 10, 2007. Therefore, he is a subsequent purchaser after the preliminary notification.

9. The Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that a subsequent purchaser could not challenge the acquisition.

10. Mr.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior advocate, in support of the appeal, submits that they are not challenging the acquisition in that sense, but their case is that the acquisition stood lapsed because of the delay and non-passing of the award.

11. Mr.Patil moves a memorandum seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition, inasmuch as the writ petitioner proposes to file a comprehensive writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition stood lapsed.

12. As prayed for by Mr.Jayakumar S.Patil, we dispose of this appeal by permitting him to withdraw Writ Petition No.34328 of 2012, with liberty to the writ petitioner to file a comprehensive writ petition, in accordance with law.

13. The order impugned stands modified as above.

14. We make no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2017 Same Parties Ramesh vs The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Represe... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee &Amp;...

Land Acquisition