P. PARTHASARATHY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

P. PARTHASARATHY versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that all statutory preconditions and formalities under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 were duly complied with, including identification of land and opportunity to file objections. Any discrepancies in the notification's description did not mislead the petitioner, nor prevent effective objection or hearing. Thus, the final notification was legally valid and required no interference.

Parties
Petitioner: P. Parthasarathy; Respondents: State of Karnataka & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 August 2011
Procedural Posture
SLP (civil) / Supreme Court Appeal From Karnataka High Court Division Bench
Outcome
SLP dismissed
Legal Topics
Legality of Acquisition Notification, Identification of Land, Compliance With Statutory Formalities
Land Acquisition Administrative Law Legality of Acquisition Notification Identification of Land Compliance With Statutory Formalities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. Parthasarathy

Petitioner

State of Karnataka & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

SLP (civil) / Supreme Court Appeal From Karnataka High Court Division Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the final notification under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 was validly issued
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient identification of the land sought to be acquired and compliance with statutory formalities

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that all statutory preconditions and formalities under Section 28 of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 were duly complied with, including identification of land and opportunity to file objections. Any discrepancies in the notification's description did not mislead the petitioner, nor prevent effective objection or hearing. Thus, the final notification was legally valid and required no interference.

Court Disposition

SLP dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court
  • Any interim order passed by the High Court stands vacated by this order