Allowed

Smt Kamalamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2019WP/12240/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed writ petitions in part, issued a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to pass orders on a representation submitted by petitioners regarding Hakku Dari Rights within three months, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued directing the third respondent to pass final orders on the notice and representation submitted by petitioners within three months.

Smt Kamalamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P.NOs.12240-12242/2019 (KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LATE S. VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

¶9

2 . SRI. KESHAVA REDDY V S/O LATE S. VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶10

3 . SRI. RAJA REDDY V S/O LATE S. VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED AOUT 37 YEARS.

¶11

ALL ARE R/AT VEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KYASAMBALLI HOBLI BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. PRAKASH K.A, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

¶17

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.

¶18

3 . THE TAHSILDAR BANGARPET TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

¶19

RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA)

¶21

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 HEREIN TO PASS THE FINAL ORDERS PURSUANT TO THE LETTER DATED:22.02.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN VIDE ANNEX-C.

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard Sri. Prakash K.A. learned Advocate

¶25

appearing for petitioners and Sri. Y.D. Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents.

¶26

Petitioners has sought for a writ of

¶27

mandamus to direct third respondent to pass orders by considering the letter dated 22.02.2017- Annexure-C submitted by them.

¶28

¶29

The sum and substance of claim made in

¶30

these writ petitions as well as in the representation submitted by the petitioners to the third respondent is to the effect that there is “Hakku Dari Rights” granted in respect of Sy.No.22 situated at Veerasandra village, Kyasamballi Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District by order dated 20.04.1977 and by notice dated 13.05.2016 issued by the third respondent, said order is sought to be withdrawn. For quashing of said notice, petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.44509511/2016 (KLR-LG) which came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 07.02.2017 vide Annexure-B permitting petitioners to submit their reply to said notice within a period of four weeks and third respondent was directed to hear the petitioners and pass orders thereon. On account of orders having not been passed despite petitioners having submitted reply dated 22.02.2017 vide Annexure-C, they are before this Court. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits

¶31

¶32

as well as claim made by the petitioners in their representations/objections dated 22.02.2017Annexure-C submitted to third respondent, a direction if issued to third respondent to pass orders on the notice dated 13.05.2016 as already directed by this Court on 07.02.2017 while disposing of writ petition Nos.44509-511/2016 it would suffice.

¶33

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

(1) Writ petitions are allowed in part.

¶36

(2) A writ of mandamus is issued to third respondent to pass orders by considering the letter/communication dated 22.02.2017 - Annexure-C submitted to third respondent by petitioners in reply to notice dated 13.05.2016 expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three

¶37

¶38

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not already disposed of.

¶39

(3) No opinion is expressed on merits of the case.

¶40

SD/JUDGE

¶41

Smt Kamalamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kamalamma 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

The Union of India Vs Sri G P Chandrashekarappa

Sri K Balakrishna Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Kalamma Vs G P Chandrashekarappa

Shivananjappa Vs Kanthamma

Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Akkayamma Vs State of Karnataka