Dismissed

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 May 2019WP/109628/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order declaring their land as reserved forest. The Court found an alternative remedy (appeal to Tribunal) existed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and dismissed the petitions while allowing a temporary 30-day stay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed with liberty to appeal; no precipitous action for 30 days.

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod Vs the Deputy… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL WP NOS.109628-109629/2019(KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI.CHANNAPPA S/O FAKEERAPPA RATHOD AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,

¶8

SHRI.PEERAPPA S/O FAKEERAPPA RATHOD AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE R/O: SHIVANA TAND, POST: INDARAGI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HOSAPETE ROAD, KOPPAL.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL.

¶14

THE TASILDHAR TASILDHAR OFFICE, KOPPAL.

¶15

¶16

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KOPPAL, DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOPPAL,

¶17

DIST: KOPPAL. ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, AGA)

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE IN THE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AUTHORITY IN Com.No.18162:No.KOP-DC-28/1/2018-KOPDCLND DATED 28.07.2018 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.74/2 MEASURING 9 ACRE 17 GUNTAS SITUATED AT INDARAGI VILLAGE KOPPAL TQ & DIST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED AND ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 AUTHORITIES NOT TO DISPOSSES THE PETITIONER'S OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 74/2 UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S DATED 26.03.2016 AS PER ANNEXURES-B AND B1 RESPECITVELY.

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

These writ petitions have been filed by the

¶24

petitioners praying this Court to issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed as per Annexure-‘G’ and not to dispossess the petitioners from the land bearing survey No.74 until disposal of the application filed by the petitioners as per Annexure-‘B’ and ‘B1’.

¶25

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioners that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste and they are in possession and cultivating the land bearing survey No.74, measuring 9 acres 17 guntas at Inderagi village since 30 years. It is further submission that they are in unauthorized occupantion. It is further submitted that earlier the above said land was Pada Land and subsequently by putting all the efforts, they made the land cultivable. It is further submitted that on 05.07.2018, respondent No.4 forwarded the letter to respondent No.1 stating that the above land as reserved Forest land and requested to declare the above land as the

¶27

¶28

Forest land. On the basis of the representation, the respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.3 to conduct panchanama and submit a report to the respondent No.2. After the report, the impugned order has been passed.

¶29

The learned AGA by taking notice to respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner and as per Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short), appeal lies to the Tribunal. When an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, then, the present writ petitions are not maintainable. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petitions.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA and perused the records. After giving my thoughtful consideration, it is observed that though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is relevant to refer to Section 49 of the Act, which reads as under:-

¶31

49. Appeals from original orders .—Save as otherwise expressly provided, an appeal shall lie from every original

¶32

¶33

order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder, 1[and from every order made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908)],—

¶34

(a) if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, 2[whether or not invested 3[or delegated] with the powers of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner], to the Assistant Commissioner;

¶35

(b) if such an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner whether or not invested with the powers of the Deputy Commissioner, to the Deputy Commissioner;

¶36

4[(c) if such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Tribunal;

¶37

5[(d) if such an order is passed by the Regional Commissioner, to the Tribunal;]

¶38

(e) if such an order is passed by a 6[Survey Officer below the rank of an Assistant Director of Land Records or Assistant Director for Settlement to the Assistant Director of Land Records or Assistant Director for Settlement], as the case may be;

¶39

(f) if such an order is passed by a Survey Officer of the rank of an 1[Assistant Director of Land Records or Assistant Director for Settlement, to the Joint Director of Land Records or Joint Director for Settlement], as the case may be;

¶40

¶41

(g) if such an order is passed by the 2[Joint Director of Land Records or Joint Director for Settlement], to the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records;

¶42

(h) if such an order is passed by the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records, to the Tribunal.]

¶43

On close reading of Section 49(c) of the Act, if any such orders have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, an appeal lies to Tribunal. When an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, then under such circumstances, the present writ petitions are not maintainable. Petitioners’ counsel submitted that the petitioners will approach the Tribunal and till then the operation of the impugned order may be stayed.

¶44

With a liberty to file an appeal before the Tribunal, the present Writ petitions are disposed of. However, in the meanwhile no precipitative steps shall be taken for a period of thirty days.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Hmb

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

M Samsun Karim Raja @ Karim @ Abdul Karim Vs Superintendent of Police

Smt Asha Vs State of Karnataka

Manja @ Kuppi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth Vs Shri.Harunsab S/O Dawalsab Dhamanekar

Sadanand S/O Narayan Naik Vs District Legal Services Authority

Dr.Bhushan S/O Sudhakar Wankhaded Vs the Immigration Officer