Allowed

Sri B K Keshavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2016WP/5022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Preliminary hearing of writ petitions seeking mandamus for processing pending applications for regularization of unauthorized land occupation. The court allowed the petitions and directed the fourth respondent to place applications before the competent committee for consideration within four months.

What did the court decide?

The fourth respondent is directed to place the petitioners applications before the competent Committee within four months from receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sri B K Keshavappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.5022-5023 OF 2016 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. B.K.Keshavappa @ Keshavamurthy, Son of Late B.K.Krishnappa, Aged 47 years,

¶9

Smt. Venkatamma, Wife of Late B.K.Krishnappa, Aged 70 years,

¶10

Both are residing at Bhaktharahalli Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Sidlaghatta Taluk 562 105.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(By Shri Hanumantharayappa, Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, M.S.Buildings,

¶15

¶16

Bengaluru 560 001, Represented by its Secretary.

¶17

The Deputy Commissioner, Chickballapura Taluk District, Chickballapura 562 101.

¶18

The Assistant Commissioner, Chickballapura Sub Division, Chickaballapura 562 101.

¶19

The Tahasildar, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Sidlaghatta 562 105.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(By Shri H. Venkatesh Dodderi, Additional Government Advocate )

¶22

¶23

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus to respondents to consider the representation dated 9.1.2015 filed by the petitioners at Annexure-E, within a time frame by allowing this writ petition

¶24

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶27

The learned Government Advocate is directed to take

¶28

notice for Respondents 1 to 4.

¶29

¶30

It is the case of the petitioners that the father of the first petitioner was cultivating an extent of land measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.25 of Bhaktharahalli village, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk. He had filed an application seeking regularization of his unauthorized occupation as on 6.8.1998 in Form No.53. Similarly, the second petitioner is also said to have filed an application seeking regularization of his unauthorized occupation of 3 acres of land in the same survey number. Both the applications are said to be pending consideration and have been numbered as per Annexure-“A”.

¶31

The petitioners are said to have planted trees on their respective lands, which is reflected in the RTC extracts for several years. Following their applicationa, the land has been surveyed and a sketch has also been prepared by the Taluk Surveyor. The report of the Revenue Inspector dated 19.02.1992 is also available. But, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents have not so far processed their

¶32

¶33

applications and confirmed their occupation and regularized the same.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate would submit that if the Annexures to the petitions are to be accepted, it would be necessary for the application of the petitioners to be processed. Therefore, the petitions are allowed. The fourth respondent is directed to place the applications of the petitioners before the competent Committee and on the report of the Committee and recommendation, further steps shall be taken, in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months if not earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Sri B K Keshavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B K Keshavappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Krishna Kumar B R Vs Bangalore Development Authority

M/S E I Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

The Mangala Water Consumers Co-Operative Society Vs the Director

Smt Muniyamma Vs Sri Gunda Reddy

Shivakumar T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Poolappa Vs the State of Karnataka