LexP. PARTHASARATHY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 599
P. PARTHASARATHY
V.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(SLP (Civil) No. 19510 of 2011)
AUGl:JST 24, 2011
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]
A
B
Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 - s.
28(4) - Final Notification issued under- Legality and validity C
of - Issuance of Notification u/s. 28 (1) to acquire land of the
petitioner - No objection filed by the petitioner, -whereupon
Notification u/s. 28 (4) issued - Challenged by filing writ
petition uls. 28(4) - Single Judge of the High Court quashed
the Notification u/s. 28(4) and directed the Land Acquisition o.
Officer to -provide opportunity to the petitioner and also to
identify the land and thereafter, to proceed with the matter - .
Subsequent thereto, land was identified and objections of the
petitioner were considered and actual portion of/and required
for formation of road was notified - Issuance of final notification
E
u/s. 28 (4) - Writ Petition by the petitioner challenging the
validity of the said Notification - Dismissed by the Single
Judge of the High Court holding that the order of Single Judge
in the earlier writ petition had become final and binding -
Division Bench upheld the order - On appeal, held: Land
F
which was sought to be acquired by the respondent was
identifiable - Petitioner was given opportunity to file his
objections which were considered - Land was resuNeyed and
thereafter, the land sought to be acquired was identified, which
included the land of the petitioner - Thus, the entire pre-
G
conditions and formalities laid down uls. 28 were duly
complied with and were adhered to and followed - Although
there was some discrepancy in the description of the property
proposed to be acquired, and the description given although
might not have been exactly accurate, but the same did not
599
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2011) 10 S.C.R.
A in any manner mislead the petitioner regarding the identity of
the land which is corroborated by the fact of the detailed
enquiry conducted in his presence - Petitioner was able to file
a detailed and effective reply to the show cause notice issued
to him - Thus, final Notification uls. 28 (4) having been validly
B issued, no interference is called for.
Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay and Ors./ AIR
1960 SC 1203 - Followed.
Narendrajit Singh and Anr. vs. The State of U.P. and Anr.
C (1970) 1 SCC 125: 1970 (3) SCR 278; Madhya Pradesh
Housing Board vs. Mohd. Shafi and Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 168:
1992 (1) SCR 657; Om Prakash Sharma and Ors. vs. M.P.
Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 306
D
E
F
G
H
- Distinguished.
State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. All India Manufacturers
Association and Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 683: 2006 (1) Suppl.
SCR 86 - Cited .
Case Law Reference:
2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 86 Cited .
Para 13
..
1970 (3) SCR 278
Distinguished .
Para 20
.. ..
1992 (1) SCR 657
Distinguished.
Para 21
(2005) 1 o sec 306
Distinguished.
Para 22
AIR 1960 SC 1203
Followed
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
19510 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.6.2011 of the High
Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 3527 of
2009.
P.P. Rao, K.G. Sadashivaiah, Kashi Vishweshwar, A.
P. PARTHASARATHY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 601
ORS.
Sumathi, Satish Kumar, Anjali Chauhan, S. Nanda Kumar for
A
the Petitioner.
Dushyant A. Dave, K.T. Anantharaman, R.V.S. Naik, Guru
Raj Deshpande, Vasudevan Raghavan, Anitha Shenoy,
Sandeep Patil for the Respondents.
B
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. This special leave petition is directed against the c
judgment and order dated 15.6.2011 passed by the Division
Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge of the same High
Court.
2. By the aforesaid order, the High Court where the legality
D
and validity of the final notification dated 6.2.09 issued under
sub-section (4) of Section 28 ofthe Karnataka Industrial Areas
Development Act, 1966 {hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was
challenged upheld the validity and legality of the aforesaid
notification issued by the respondent/State exercising the
E
powers vested in it under sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the
Act.
3. The petitioner herein is the owner of survey no. 154/10
measuring about 2 acres at Kengeri village, Kengeri Hobli,
F
Bangalore South taluk. The land of the petitioner was the
subjeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.