Puttarudrappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Puttarudrappa vs State of Karnataka and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Sep 08, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/381289

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/381289
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: R.P. Sethi, C.J. and; S.R. Bannurmath, J.
Decided On: Sep 08, 1997
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9674 of 1996
Subject: Property

Case Summary

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

- KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS RULES, 1974. Rule 17: [N.K.Patil, J] Order of Tribunal found to be anti-dated and manipulated after signature of members - Order was set aside and matter remitted to Tribunal.

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and 6(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Puttarudrappa

Advocate Sri Mohandas N. Hegde, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and Others

Advocate Sri Basavaraju Belavangala, ;Sri R.S. Hegde, Advs. and ;Sri A.V. Srinivasa Reddy Additional Government Advocate

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1) and 6(1)
Reported In: 1999(4)KarLJ141

Excerpt

- karnataka land reforms rules, 1974. rule 17: [n.k.patil, j] order of tribunal found to be anti-dated and manipulated after signature of members - order was set aside and matter remitted to tribunal......the writ petition was premature. liberty was given to the appellant to approach the court in the event the notification under section 6(1) of the act was issued. it is contended that the impugned order has been passed completely ignoring the facts of the case inasmuch as notification under section 6(1) of the act in fact had been issued by the competent authority and the appellant was permitted to challenge the same by amending his writ petition.2. the record of the proceedings supports the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. it appears that during the pendency of the writ petition a final notification was issued which was published in the karnataka gazette on 14-4-1994. the appellant thereafter filed an interlocutory application praying therein for quashing the final notification annexure-e for the reasons already detailed in the writ petition and further on the ground that as the final notification had been issued after a lapse of one year from the date of preliminary notification the same was liable to be quashed. the appellant prayed for amendment of the writ petition by adding the following prayer:'the petitioner prays that this hon'ble court may be pleased to quash the notification dated 16-3-1994 published in karnataka gazette dated 14-4-1994 (annexure-e), in the interest of justice'.it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the application for amendment was allowed by the learned single judge on 2-6-1995, admittedly before the date of hearing which was later fixed in the case on 30-9-1996. the learned single judge was therefore not justified in holding the writ petition to be premature by assuming that no notification under section 6 of the act had been issued. the order of the learned single judge is therefore liable to be set aside. as the pleas raised by the appellant have not been considered on merits, it is deemed proper to remit the case back to the learned single judge with request to.....

Full Judgment

R.P. Sethi, C.J.

1. Notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire land measuring four acres comprising Survey No. 28/1 of Mallathahalli was issued on 28-12-1992 which was challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition No. 29081 of 1993. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that as final notification under Section 6(1) of the Act had not been issued, the writ petition was premature. Liberty was given to the appellant to approach the Court in the event the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed completely ignoring the facts of the case inasmuch as notification under Section 6(1) of the Act in fact had been issued by the Competent Authority and the appellant was permitted to challenge the same by amending his writ petition.

2. The record of the proceedings supports the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition a final notification was issued which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 14-4-1994. The appellant thereafter filed an interlocutory application praying therein for quashing the final notification Annexure-E for the reasons already detailed in the writ petition and further on the ground that as the final notification had been issued after a lapse of one year from the date of preliminary notification the same was liable to be quashed. The appellant prayed for amendment of the writ petition by adding the following prayer:

'The petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the notification dated 16-3-1994 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 14-4-1994 (Annexure-E), in the interest of justice'.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the application for amendment was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 2-6-1995, admittedly before the date of hearing which was later fixed in the case on 30-9-1996. The learned Single Judge was therefore not justified in holding the writ petition to be premature by assuming that no notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued. The order of the learned Single Judge is therefore liable to be set aside. As the pleas raised by the appellant have not been considered on merits, it is deemed proper to remit the case back to the learned Single Judge with request to decide the same on merits after affording the parties opportunity of being heard.

3. Under the circumstances of the case the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The case is remanded back with the request to the learned Single Judge to rehear the matter and decide the writ petition on merits in the light of the submissions made in the writ petition and I.As filed for the purpose of seeking amendment to challenge the notification under Section 6(1) of the Act.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1997 Same Parties Puttarudrappa vs State of Karnataka and Others Same Subject Property Same Judge R.P. Sethi, C.J. and; S.R. Bannurmath, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Land Acquisition Act, 18...

Property