Allowed

Sri S v. Ganapathi v the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2019WP/39383/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to respondents to expeditiously consider their representation regarding grant of compensation land amidst land acquisition, directing disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents No. 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 13.03.2018 (Annexure-B) and dispose of it within three months.

Sri S v Ganapathi Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P.NO.39383/2019 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI. S.V. GANAPATHI S/O CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT SIRIGOLLI HOSANADU VILLAGE HOSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DSITRICT PIN – 577 418.

¶9

2 . SRI. RAMAPPA @ RAMANNA S/O KOLLANNA @ KOLLA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT MARAVAN K.B. CIRCLE, NAGAR HOBLI HOSANAGAR TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT PIN – 577 418.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH B, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPSRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

2 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER 2^ND FLOOR, B.M.T.C. BUILDING

¶15

¶16

K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶17

3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA – 577 201.

¶18

4 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR-SUB-DIVISION SAGAR, SHIMOGA-DISTRICT PIN – 577 401.

¶19

5 . THE TAHASILDAR HOSANAGAR-TQ, HOSANAGAR SHIMOGA DISTRICT PIN – 577 418.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS ANEXURE-B SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXPEDITIOUSLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing

¶26

by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

¶28

Petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of original grantees who had been granted agricultural land in measuring 5 Acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.134, 20 guntas in Sy.No.136, 2 Acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.188, 4 Acres in Sy.No.134 and 2 Acres in Sy.No.136 respectively at Hosanadu village, Shivamogga district and said lands having been acquired/submerged for establishment of Sharavathi valley project, Special Officer for rehabilitation appointed for said project, is said to have granted lands on compensatory ground to the extent of 2 Acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Hosur village and 2 Acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.160 of Mathikai village in favour of Sri. Manjanna @ Mariya and 3 Acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.4 of Hosur village and 30 guntas in Mathikai village in favour of Sri.Kollanna @ Kolla.

¶29

Petitioners claiming to be the legal heirs of said grantees have contended that on account of grantees being residents of different villages they had not paid TT fine and as such grant dated 26.03.2010

¶30

¶31

came to be challenged in W.P.Nos.9506-9507/2012 before this Court which came to be dismissed by reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach Regional Commissioner and /or any other Competent Authority to consider their applications for grant of equal extent land either in Hosur or Mathikai village where the predecessor in title of petitioners were earlier granted or in the village of Seeregolli where the petitioners now claim to be residing at present.

¶32

Pursuant to liberty being granted, petitioners have submitted representation dated 13.03.2018- Annexure-B to the respondents which has not been disposed of. As such, they are before this Court. Hence, a direction is issued to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representation submitted by petitioners dated 13.03.2018Annexure-B in accordance with law expeditiously and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

¶34

Sri. Y.D. Harsha, learned Government Advocate is

¶35

permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

Sri S v. Ganapathi v the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S v. Ganapathi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri George T Ramapuram Vs the State of Karnataka

H N Premakumar Vs State of Karnataka

H.D. Narayanamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjeev Kumar v Rayabhagi Vs Additional Registrar of Co-Opertive Societies

Smt Venkamma S Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vishalakshamma Vs the State of Karnataka