Printable Format26-502. Contents of petition. A petition shall include allegations of (1) the authority for and the purpose of the taking; (2) a description of each lot, parcel or tract of land and the nature of the interest to be taken; (3) insofar as their interests are to be taken (a) the name of any owner and all lienholders of record, and (b) the name of any party in possession. Such petition shall be verified by affidavit. Upon the filing of such petition the court by order shall fix the time when the same will be taken up. No defect in form which does not impair substantial rights of the parties shall invalidate any proceeding.
History: L. 1963, ch. 234, ยง 2; January 1, 1964.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Compensation is based on full use condemned as described in condemner's petition and considered by appraisers. Diefenbach v. State Highway Commission, 195 Kan. 445, 407 P.2d 228.
2. Duty to ascertain parties; owners, lienholders of record and those in possession. Dotson v. State Highway Commission, 198 Kan. 671, 674, 675, 426 P.2d 138.
3. The only obligation as to parties insofar as the condemner is concerned is to name in the petition the owners and all lienholders of record and the name of any party in possession. Morgan v. City of Overland Park, 207 Kan. 188, 193, 483 P.2d 1079.
4. Act applied; injunction proceeding against electric utility; no abuse of discretion; trial court's findings reviewed and affirmed. Concerned Citizens, United, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 215 Kan. 218, 226, 523 P.2d 755.
5. Compensation for actual rights acquired rather than rights actually used, taking through exercise of police power examined. Hudson v. City of Shawnee, 245 Kan. 221, 225, 777 P.2d 800 (1989).
6. Exercise of police power as noncompensable noted; closing all access as unreasonable determined. Hudson v. City of Shawnee, 246 Kan. 395, 400, 790 P.2d 933 (1990). (Modifying 245 Kan. 221, 777 P.2d 800 (1989)).
7. Under facts, condemnor may amend eminent domain petition to correct incorrect legal description of landowner's easements. Landau Investment Co. v. City of Overland Park, 261 Kan. 394, 399, 406, 930 P.2d 1065 (1997).
8. Condemnation proceeding voided by statutory defects including failure to list tracts and record owners in petition and notice. City of Wichita v. Meyer, 262 Kan. 534, 544, 939 P.2d 926 (1997).
9. Mentioned in upholding eminent domain proceeding by telephone company; injunctive relief denied. Schuck v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 286 Kan. 19, 29, 180 P.3d 571 (2008).
10. Plaintiff's purported claim for inverse condemnation held to be unavailing. Winkel v. Miller, 288 Kan. 455, 205 P.3d 688 (2009).