{"id":224280,"date":"2011-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-12-18T08:33:32","modified_gmt":"2016-12-18T03:03:32","slug":"p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n            Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).19510\/2011\n\n\n\n\n\nP. PARTHASARATHY                                                  Petitioner(s)\n\n\n\n\n                                    VERSUS\n\n\n\n\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.                              Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
1. This special leave petition is directed against the judgment and <\/p>\n
   order   dated   15.6.2011   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the <\/p>\n
   Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment and order passed <\/p>\n
   by the learned Single Judge of the same High Court.\n<\/p>\n
2. By   the   aforesaid   order,   the   High   Court   where   the   legality   and <\/p>\n
   validity of the final notification dated 6.2.09 issued under sub-\n<\/p>\n
   section   (4)   of   Section   28   of   the   Karnataka   Industrial   Areas <\/p>\n
   Development   Act,   1966   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘Act’) <\/p>\n
                                      Page 1 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
      was challenged upheld the validity and legality of the aforesaid <\/p>\n
      notification   issued   by   the   respondent\/State   exercising   the <\/p>\n
      powers   vested   in   it   under   sub-section   (4)   of   Section   28   of   the <\/p>\n
      Act.\n<\/p>\n
3. The   petitioner   herein   is   the   owner   of   survey   no.   154\/10 <\/p>\n
      measuring   about   2   acres   at   Kengeri   village,   Kengeri   Hobli, <\/p>\n
      Bangalore   South   taluk.     The   land   of   the   petitioner   was   the <\/p>\n
      subject   matter   of   the   notification   issued   by   the   State   of <\/p>\n
      Karnataka.   The  notification was issued  under Section  28(1) of <\/p>\n
      the   Act.     The   petitioner,   however,   did   not   file   any   objection <\/p>\n
      whereupon   a   final   notification   under   Section   28(4)   of   the   Act <\/p>\n
      was issued, which, however, was challenged before the learned <\/p>\n
      Single   Judge   of   the   Karnataka   High   Court   by   filing   a   writ <\/p>\n
      petition, which was registered and numbered as W.P. No. 24867 <\/p>\n
      of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The   learned   Single   Judge   by   judgment   and   order   dated <\/p>\n
      13.01.2009 allowed the said writ petition filed by the petitioner <\/p>\n
      herein   and   quashed   the   final   notification   issued   and   also   the <\/p>\n
      consequential corrigendum.  The learned Single Judge also gave <\/p>\n
      a   liberty   to   the   respondents   to   identify   the   land   which   they <\/p>\n
                                           Page 2 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
propose   to   acquire.     It   was   also   held   therein   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
Single   Judge   that   the   petitioner   as   also   the   respondent   no.   4 <\/p>\n
would take the proceeding before the High Court as the notice in <\/p>\n
the matter of identification of the land in question and file their <\/p>\n
objections within a period of four weeks.  Subsequent thereto, a <\/p>\n
notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board on 6.2.2009.  In <\/p>\n
the said notice, the Board informed the petitioner that the land <\/p>\n
described   in   the   notice   is   required   for   the   development   of   the <\/p>\n
Karnataka   Industrial   Development   Board   and   that   the <\/p>\n
Government of Karnataka had issued a notification under sub-\n<\/p>\n
section   (1)   of   Section   28   of   the   Act   by   notification   dated <\/p>\n
19.12.1998.     The   petitioner   was   further   informed   that   he   may <\/p>\n
show cause as to why the land should not be acquired and that <\/p>\n
such   a   notice   is   being   given   to   the   petitioner   pursuant   to   the <\/p>\n
order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition.  A <\/p>\n
description   of   the   land   was   also   given   in   the   said   notice.     The <\/p>\n
petitioner   as   against   the   same   submitted   a   reply   contending, <\/p>\n
inter   alia,   that   the   land   of   the   petitioner   could   not   and   would <\/p>\n
not   come   within   the   aforesaid   acquisition   and,   therefore,   his <\/p>\n
name shown in the preliminary notification dated 19.12.1998 be <\/p>\n
                                     Page 3 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
  deleted.   He further  stated   in the  said  reply filed  that the plan <\/p>\n
  prepared   for   road   including   the   peripherial   road   junction, <\/p>\n
  approved by the competent          authority clearly indicate that <\/p>\n
  the   land   in   question   is   not   at   all   required   or   proposed   to   be <\/p>\n
  acquired   and   that   being   the   state   of   affairs,   acquisition   of   any <\/p>\n
  portion   of   the   said   land   bearing   survey   no.   154   cannot   be <\/p>\n
  sustained either in facts or in law and the same is liable to be <\/p>\n
  dropped from acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
5. After the receipt of the aforesaid objection filed by the petitioner, <\/p>\n
  an   enquiry   was   conducted   by   the   Special   Land   Acquisition <\/p>\n
  Officer.   A report was also prepared, which is placed on record.\n<\/p>\n
  It appears the petitioner was represented by his counsel in the <\/p>\n
  said enquiry proceedings.   The concerned officer considered the <\/p>\n
  records and then ordered that notices be issued to all concerned <\/p>\n
  persons   including   the   petitioner   notifying   them   that   a   survey <\/p>\n
  would be conducted to measure the land and that the petitioner <\/p>\n
  should   be   present   in   the   aforesaid   survey   to   be   made   to   show <\/p>\n
  their respective lands.\n<\/p>\n
6. It is also disclosed from the record that as per the date fixed i.e. <\/p>\n
  on   18.4.2009,   the   concerned   officers   visited   the   spot   and   on <\/p>\n
                                       Page 4 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
  that   day,   the   concerned   persons   including   the   petitioner   and <\/p>\n
  others   were   present.     In   the   said   survey,   the   previous   phoded <\/p>\n
  numbers were cancelled and thereafter the mahazar was drawn <\/p>\n
  in   the   presence   of   the   parties  and   they   were   also   given   sketch <\/p>\n
  copies   with   available   records   in   terms   of   their   requests.       The <\/p>\n
  officer,   thereafter,   heard   the   arguments   and   after   referring   to <\/p>\n
  the order of the Karnataka High Court dated 13.01.2009 it was <\/p>\n
  held   that   the   land   measuring   2.33   acres   is   required   for   the <\/p>\n
  project.   Thereafter the said Land Acquisition Officer passed an <\/p>\n
  order that the land bearing survey no. 154\/10 of Kengeri village, <\/p>\n
  Kengeri   Hobli,   Bangalore   South   taluk   is   required   for   the <\/p>\n
  proposed   reasons   of   acquisition   and   that   the   same   is   suitable <\/p>\n
  and   required   as   per   the   joint   measurement   and   schedule   and, <\/p>\n
  therefore, the said land measuring 2.33 acres was ordered to be <\/p>\n
  acquired.     Consequent   thereupon   a   notification   under   Section <\/p>\n
  28(4)   was   issued   whereby   the   land   of   the   petitioner   was <\/p>\n
  acquired by  putting the name of the petitioner in the  schedule <\/p>\n
  annexed to the said notification.\n<\/p>\n
7. The validity of the aforesaid notification was challenged by filing <\/p>\n
  a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court.  The learned Single <\/p>\n
                                      Page 5 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
  Judge   who   heard   the   writ   petition,   after   hearing   the   counsel <\/p>\n
  appearing   for   the   parties,   dismissed   the   writ   petition   by   his <\/p>\n
  order   dated   11.9.2009   holding   that   the   order   of   the   learned <\/p>\n
  Single   Judge   in   the   earlier   writ   petition   no.   24867\/2005 <\/p>\n
  directing the Land Acquisition Officer to provide opportunity to <\/p>\n
  the   petitioner   and   also   to   identify   the   land   and   thereafter   to <\/p>\n
  proceed   with   the   matter   having   become   final   and   binding   and <\/p>\n
  since   subsequent   to   the   said   order,   the   land   having   been <\/p>\n
  identified   and   his   objections   having   been   considered   and   the <\/p>\n
  actual   portion   of   the   land   required   for   formation   of   the   road <\/p>\n
  having been notified, there could be no further grievance of the <\/p>\n
  petitioner.  Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner <\/p>\n
  was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8. Being aggrieved by the said order, a writ appeal was filed before <\/p>\n
  the High Court, which is the impugned judgment and order.  By <\/p>\n
  the   said   judgment,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
  dismissed the appeal holding that any defect in the preliminary <\/p>\n
  notification would not prove fatal to the acquisition proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
  It was also held that though survey number was not challenged, <\/p>\n
  a fresh inquiry was held to identify the land whereupon the land <\/p>\n
                                      Page 6 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
   was identified and thereafter order was passed followed by final <\/p>\n
   declaration   that   the   land   of   the   petitioner   is   required   for   the <\/p>\n
   project.     Consequently,   the   appeal  was  also   dismissed   and  the <\/p>\n
   present   petition   was   filed   on   which   we   have   heard   the   learned <\/p>\n
   counsel appearing for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
9. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner <\/p>\n
   has submitted that the land was not identifiable as although the <\/p>\n
   extent   of   land   was   mentioned   in   the   notification   but   the <\/p>\n
   boundaries   that   were   given   were   incorrect   and   erroneous   and, <\/p>\n
   therefore, the notification issued by the respondent State under <\/p>\n
   sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act is liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
10. In support of the aforesaid contention,  the learned counsel has <\/p>\n
   relied upon the decisions of this Court titled Narendrajit Singh <\/p>\n
   &
\n        Anr.  <\/p>\n
\n               Vs.  The\n                                 State   of   U.P.   and   Anr.    reported   in   (1970)   1 \n\n\n   SCC  125,  Madhya\n                                   Pradesh Housing Board  Vs.\n                                                                            Mohd.\n                                                                                      Shafi  \n\n\n   and   Others  reported   in  (1992)   2     SCC   168   and  Om   Prakash  \n\n\n   Sharma\n                   and Others Vs.\n                                           M.P\n                                                 . Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam  \n\n\n   and Others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 306. \n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
11.Mr.   Dushyant   Dave,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the <\/p>\n
                                                Page 7 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
   respondent   no.   5   and   Ms.   Shenoy,   learned   counsel   appearing <\/p>\n
   for   the   State   have   refuted   the   aforesaid   submissions   of   the <\/p>\n
   counsel appearing for the petitioner and submitted that the land <\/p>\n
   which   was   sought   to   be   acquired   by   the   respondent   was <\/p>\n
   identifiable all along. It is also submitted that the petitioner was <\/p>\n
   given opportunity to file his objections, which were considered, <\/p>\n
   and even the land was re-surveyed in order to identify the exact <\/p>\n
   location and area of the land in terms of the order passed by the <\/p>\n
   learned   Single   Judge   and   thereafter   upon   proper   identification <\/p>\n
   and   verification   of   the   land,   the   notification   under   sub-section <\/p>\n
   (4)   of   Section   28   of   the   Act   having   been   validly   issued,   there <\/p>\n
   could be no interference in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
12.In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   submissions   of   the   counsel <\/p>\n
   appearing   for   the   respondents,   we   propose   to   dispose   of   this <\/p>\n
   special leave petition by giving our reasons thereof.\n<\/p>\n
13. The   project   that   we   are   concerned   with   was   also   the   subject <\/p>\n
   matter   of   appeal   filed   in   this   Court   in   the   case   of  State   of  <\/p>\n
   Karnataka
\n                     and   Anr.    Vs.         All
\n                                                          India   Manufacturers  <\/p>\n
   Association   and   Anr.  reported   in   (2006)   4   SCC   683.     In <\/p>\n
   paragraph   77   of   the   said   judgment,   it   was   held   by   this   Court <\/p>\n
                                        Page 8 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
  that   the   concerned   project   is   an   integrated   infrastructure <\/p>\n
  development project and is not merely a highway project.  It was <\/p>\n
  also   held   that   the   project   which   is   styled,   conceived   and <\/p>\n
  implemented   is   the   Bangalore-Mysore   Infrastructure   Corridor <\/p>\n
  Project   which   conceived   of   the   development   of   roads   between <\/p>\n
  Bangalore   and   Mysore.   There   are   several   interchanges   in   and <\/p>\n
  around the periphery of the city of the Bangalore together with <\/p>\n
  numerous developmental infrastructure activities along with the <\/p>\n
  highway at several points.   It is, therefore, needless to reiterate <\/p>\n
  that the project is a very important project and the land which <\/p>\n
  is   sought   to   be   acquired   is   proposed   to   be   a   part   of   the <\/p>\n
  peripheral   road   being   a   part   of   the   aforesaid   developmental <\/p>\n
  infrastructure.\n<\/p>\n
14.The issue that arises for our consideration is whether there was <\/p>\n
  any inaccuracy with regard to the description of the boundaries <\/p>\n
  of the land which is sought to be acquired by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
  In fact, in the earlier round of litigation wherein validity of sub-\n<\/p>\n
  section (1) of Section 28 was not challenged, what was done was <\/p>\n
  to quash the notification issued under sub-section (4) of Section <\/p>\n
  28,   which   was   in   fact   under   challenge.   Even   thereafter   and <\/p>\n
                                     Page 9 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
   pursuant   to   the   orders   of   the   High   Court   which   had   become <\/p>\n
   final and binding, a re-survey was done after going through the <\/p>\n
   objection filed by the petitioner. In the said re-survey where the <\/p>\n
   petitioner was also personally present, the land proposed to be <\/p>\n
   taken   and   acquired   was   identified,   sketch   map   was   prepared <\/p>\n
   and thereafter only the final notification under sub-section (4) of <\/p>\n
   Section 28 was issued.\n<\/p>\n
15.That   the   petitioner   could   file   his   objection   and   he   was   fully <\/p>\n
   heard   and   was   also   given   an   opportunity   regarding <\/p>\n
   identification of the land indicates that the petitioner had ample <\/p>\n
   opportunity   to   place   his   case,   which   was   considered   but <\/p>\n
   decided against him.  In our considered opinion full opportunity <\/p>\n
   having   been   given   to   the   petitioner   to   place   his   case   and   to <\/p>\n
   oppose   the   acquisition   process,   there   could   be   no   further <\/p>\n
   grievance of the petitioner in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
16.We   are   also   of   the   opinion   that   no   prejudice   is   caused   to   the <\/p>\n
   petitioner   in   any   manner   for   the   land   was   re-surveyed   and <\/p>\n
   thereafter the land sought to be acquired was identified, which <\/p>\n
   included the land of the petitioner and, therefore, the entire pre-\n<\/p>\n
   conditions and formalities as laid down under Section 28 of the <\/p>\n
                                        Page 10 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
   Act were duly complied with and were adhered to and followed <\/p>\n
   and,   therefore,   there   cannot   be   any   further   cause   of   grievance <\/p>\n
   for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
17. In   this   connection,   we   may   appropriately   refer   to   a   decision   of <\/p>\n
   the Constitution Bench of this Court in  Babu Barkya Thakur <\/p>\n
   Vs.    State   of   Bombay   and   Others,  reported   in   AIR   1960   SC <\/p>\n
   1203.     In   paragraph   12   of   the   said   judgment,   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
   Court   has   held   that   the   purpose   of   the   notification   under <\/p>\n
   Section 4 is to carry on a preliminary investigation with a view <\/p>\n
   to finding out after necessary survey and taking of levels and if <\/p>\n
   necessary   digging   or  boring   into   the   sub-soil   whether   the   land <\/p>\n
   was   adapted   for   the   purpose   for   which   it   was   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
   acquired.     It   was   further   held   in   that   decision   that   it   is   only <\/p>\n
   under Section  6 that a firm declaration has to be made by the <\/p>\n
   Government that the   land with proper description and area so <\/p>\n
   as   to   identifiable   is   needed   for   a   public   purpose   or   for   a <\/p>\n
   company.     The   aforesaid   observation   was   made   after   holding <\/p>\n
   that   what   was   a   mere   proposal   under   Section   4   becomes   a <\/p>\n
   subject   matter   of   a   definite   proceeding   for   acquisition   on <\/p>\n
   issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                        Page 11 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
18.We   feel   that   the   law   laid   down   in   the   said   decision   applies   in <\/p>\n
   full   force  to  this  case  also.  In the  present  case  also  there  were <\/p>\n
   some errors and mistakes in the notification issued under sub-\n<\/p>\n
   section (1) of Section 28 of the Act but the same did not, in any <\/p>\n
   manner,   prevent   the   petitioner   from   submitting   an   effective <\/p>\n
   objection   and   also   from   getting   an   opportunity   of   effective <\/p>\n
   hearing   for   him.   A   re-survey   was   done   in   his   presence   and, <\/p>\n
   therefore,   the   purpose   for   which     the   provision   of   sub-section <\/p>\n
   (1), (2) and (3) have been enacted, have been fully carried out in <\/p>\n
   the present case.\n<\/p>\n
19.We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that although there <\/p>\n
   was   some   discrepancy   in   the   description   of   the   property <\/p>\n
   proposed   to   be   acquired   and   the   description   given   although <\/p>\n
   might not have been exactly accurate, but the same did not in <\/p>\n
   any manner misled the petitioner regarding the identity   of the <\/p>\n
   land   which   is   corroborated   by   the   fact   of   the   detailed   enquiry <\/p>\n
   which   was   conducted   in   his   presence.   The   petitioner   was   also <\/p>\n
   able   to   file   a   detailed   and   effective   reply   to   the   show   cause <\/p>\n
   notice issued to him.\n<\/p>\n
20. The   decisions   which   are   relied   upon   by   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
                                        Page 12 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
   appearing for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts.\n<\/p>\n
   So   far   the   decision   in   case   of  Narendrajit
\n                                                                 Singh   &   Anr.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                      Vs.\n<\/p>\n
   The
\n            State   of   U.P.   and   Anr.    reported   in  (1970)   1   SCC   125 <\/p>\n
   (supra)   is   concerned,   in   the   said   case   we   find   that   this   Court <\/p>\n
   interfered with the declaration because there was no particulars <\/p>\n
   given in the notification.  In the said case, there was no mention <\/p>\n
   of   any   locality   at   all   and   in   that   context,   this   Court   interfered <\/p>\n
   with the proposed acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
21. So far the next case, namely, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board <\/p>\n
   Vs.\n<\/p>\n
           Mohd.\n<\/p>\n
                      Shafi   and   Others  reported   in  (1992)   2   SCC   168 <\/p>\n
   (supra) is concerned, in that case also details and particulars of <\/p>\n
   the   land   were   not   given   and   a   wrong   public   purpose   was <\/p>\n
   mentioned and in that view of the matter, this Court interfered <\/p>\n
   with the acquisition proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
22. As   regards   the   case   of  Om
\n                                           Prakash  Sharma   and  Others   Vs. <\/p>\n
   M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam and Others  reported in <\/p>\n
   (2005)   10   SCC   306   (supra)   which   was   relied   upon   by   the <\/p>\n
   counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case neither any <\/p>\n
   survey   number   was   given   nor   any   khasra   number   was   given.\n<\/p>\n
   Even the name of the  persons  were not mentioned and in  that <\/p>\n
                                          Page 13 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
   context   the   declaration   was   quashed   with   a   liberty   by   way   of <\/p>\n
   giving   a   fresh   opportunity   for   initiation   of   a   fresh   acquisition <\/p>\n
   proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
23.The   aforesaid   cases   are   clearly   distinguishable   on   facts   and, <\/p>\n
   therefore,   they   have   no   application   in   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
   circumstances of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
24.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we <\/p>\n
   are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the   learned  Single  Judge  as <\/p>\n
   also   the   learned   Division   Bench   of   the   Karnataka   High   Court <\/p>\n
   did   not   commit   any   mistake   or   error   in   dismissing   the   writ <\/p>\n
   petition.\n<\/p>\n
25.We   find   no   infirmity   in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order <\/p>\n
   passed by the Division Bench.  The petition has no merit and is <\/p>\n
   dismissed, but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
26.Since we have dismissed this petition, any interim order passed <\/p>\n
   by the High Court shall also stand vacated by this order.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ………………………………………\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   J<\/p>\n
                                              (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)<\/p>\n
                                      Page 14 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n
                           ……………………………………..J<\/p>\n
                                  (ANIL R. DAVE)<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI,<\/p>\n
AUGUST 24, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                    Page 15 of 15<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011 Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s).19510\/2011 P. PARTHASARATHY Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R 1. This special […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-18T03:03:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T03:03:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2556,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011\",\"name\":\"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T03:03:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-18T03:03:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T03:03:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011"},"wordCount":2556,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011","name":"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T03:03:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-parthasarathy-vs-state-of-karnataka-ors-on-24-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Parthasarathy vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 24 August, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224280","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}