Disposed

Smt . Mangamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2016WP/28745/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner sought a grant certificate for government land. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation with expedition without specifying a deadline.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's representation with expedition for issuance of Saguvali chit/Grant Certificate.

Smt . Mangamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.28745 OF 2015 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Mangamma, Aged about 85 years, Wife of Sri. Ramaiah, Residing at Doddathumkur Village, Madhure Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore District 577 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Venkataswamy and Shri D. Pavanesh, Advocates)

¶11

AND:

¶12

State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 560 001.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore 560 009.

¶14

¶15

The Tahsildar, Bangalore District, Bangalore 560 009.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Shri Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate) *****

¶18

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records pertaining to the grant of the land in question from the respondent and to direct the respondents to issue the saguvali chit/grant certificate in respect of the land in question in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents.

¶22

It is the petitioner’s case that land bearing Sy.No.62 of

¶23

Doddathumkur Village, Madure Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk is a Government gomal land and that several persons are in unauthorized occupation or bagahukum possession and

¶24

¶25

cultivation of portions of land in Sy.No.62 of Doddathumkur Village. The petitioner claims to be in possession of an extent of 1 acre 3 guntas of land in the said survey no.62.

¶26

The petitioner as well as other cultivators had filed an

¶27

application seeking regularization of their bagahukum cultivation. The Land Tribunal is said to have rejected the application of the petitioner seeking such regularization according to the petitioner, without assigning any reasons, while allowing other applications filed by similarly placed persons. The petitioner therefore had challenged the order rejecting her application before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore. The said authority had remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration and the Tribunal on such remand, had conducted a spot inspection and had confirmed the fact that the petitioner was in possession and cultivation of 1 acre 3 guntas of land and recommended regularization of the land in question in favour of the petitioner,

¶28

¶29

pursuant to which the petitioner had approached the Thsildar seeking issuance of a Saguvali chit or a Grant Certificate. In spite of her best efforts, no such certificate has been issued till date and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

The petition is silent as to the date on which she had made the representation to the Tahsildar. It is not clear whether the petitioner had indeed made such a representation. No such representation is produced along with the petition. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to renew her request if any such request is made pursuant to the recommendation of the Land Tribunal which is at Annexure-“F” to the petition.

¶31

The Tahsildar shall thereafter consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been awaiting such regularization for a long time, the Tahsildar shall consider such representation with expedition.

¶32

¶33

The petition though mentions the land claimed by the

¶34

petitioner as bearing Sy.No.49, it is actually Survey No.62.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Smt . Mangamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt . Mangamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Nataraju Vs Smt B Kalpana

Sri. Venkatesh. v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B H Ramesh S/O Late Hanumanthe Gowda Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Thippeshi Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sharavathy Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax