Allowed

Smt. Lalitha v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2019WP/56301/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by agricultural labourers seeking regularization of sites allotted by a Mandal Panchayath in government land. The Court observed that the beneficiaries belong to the weaker section, and the land had lost its agricultural character, directing the Deputy Commissioner to regularize the allotment under an extant scheme within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents No. 2 and 4 to regularize the allotment of sites for 107 beneficiaries under Ashraya Scheme or any other extant scheme within six months of the order.

Smt. Lalitha Vs the Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P. NOs.56301/2015 & 56945-56973/2015(KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SMT. LALITHA W/O SRI. SURESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.50.

¶9

2 . SRI. BELURE GOWDA S/O CHENNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.51.

¶10

3 . SMT. BHAGYA W/O RAGHU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.52.

¶11

4 . SMT. JAYANTHI W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.53.

¶12

5 . SMT. MANJULA W/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.56.

¶13

6 . SMT. SUJATHA W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.61.

¶14

¶15

7 . SMT. PADMAMMA W/O DEVARAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.62.

¶16

8 . SRI. T.M. ANNAYYA S/O MUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.63.

¶17

9 . SRI. MOHAN KUMAR C.V S/O VEERABHADREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.64.

¶18

10 . SMT NANDINI W/O VIRUPAKSHA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.66.

¶19

11 . SMT. JAVARAMMA W/O JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.68.

¶20

12 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.72.

¶21

13 . SMT. PREMA W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.73.

¶22

14 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O DODDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.76.

¶23

15 . SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA,

¶24

¶25

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.77.

¶26

16 . SMT. BHAGYA W/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.78.

¶27

17 . SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.81.

¶28

18 . SMT. RANJITHA W/O KIRAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.85.

¶29

19 . SRI. P. RASHANTH KUMAR S/O JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.87.

¶30

20 . SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.89.

¶31

21 . SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.91.

¶32

22 . SMT. YASHODHAMMA W/O DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.93.

¶33

23 . SMT. MANJULA W/O BOREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.94.

¶34

¶35

24 . SMT. RADHA W/O RANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.96.

¶36

25 . SRI. H.C. LOKESH S/O CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.98.

¶37

26 . SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.99.

¶38

27 . SRI. S. MALLIKARJUNA S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.101.

¶39

28 . SRI. GAVIGOWDA S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.102.

¶40

29 . SMT. JAYANTHI W/O JAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.105.

¶41

30 . SRI RAMEGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS OWNER OF SITE NO.107.

¶42

ALL ARE RESIDING AT B. KATIHALLI KOPPLU VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶43

...PETITIONERS

¶44

(BY SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶45

¶46

AND:

¶47

1 . THE CHIEF SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 506 001.

¶48

2 . THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF KARNATAKA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 506 001.

¶49

3 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE DIVISION MYSORE - 570 001.

¶50

4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201.

¶51

5 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201.

¶52

6 . THE TAHASILDAR HASSAN TALUK HASSAN - 573 201.

¶53

…RESPONDENTS

¶54

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

¶55

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SY NO.17 OF B. KATIHALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT IN THE MATTER OF ISSUE OF HAKKUPATRA AND REGULARIZATION.

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

Though matter is listed for ‘Hearing on Interlocutory Application’ it is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties and in view of the fact that rule nisi has been issued on 15.12.2012.

¶60

2. Heard Sri.M.Shiva Prakash, learned counsel

¶61

appearing for petitioners and Sri. Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶62

Petitioners are said to be agricultural labourers belonging to economically low income group and had been identified as siteless and houseless persons of Katihalli Village, Hassan Taluk and District, which village was under the administrative control of Katihalli Village Mandal Panchayath. Sites formed in Sy.No.17 in an extent of 4 acres had been granted in favour of petitioners, which had been formed by Mandal Panchayath by passing a resolution in that regard.

¶63

¶64

Said Mandal Panchayath on identifying 107

¶65

beneficiaries is said to have allotted sites to the persons belonging to socio economically weaker section by issuing Hakkupatras as per list–Annexure-A. Said Hakkupatras issued to petitioners has been produced at Annexures-B to B-29. It is thereafter khatha came to be issued in favour of allottees by Mandal Panchayath and taxes have been collected from petitioners as per Annexures-C-1 to C-10 and D-1 to D-10 respectively. Since sites allotted to petitioners by Mandal Panchayath having not been regularized, petitioners are before this Court.

¶66

Perusal of records would disclose that Mandal Panchayath has intimated the jurisdictional Tahsildar by communication dated 20.06.2014 requesting thereunder for grant of 107 sites which has already been allotted in favour of petitioners by the Grama Panchayath. Tahsildar in turn has addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner on 21.07.2014Annexure-G for taking steps to reserve said area of 4

¶67

¶68

acres in Sy.No.17 under Ashraya Scheme, who in turn has directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct spot inspection and place the material for taking further steps. Accordingly, Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, has submitted a detail report to the Deputy Commissioner on 08.01.2016-Annexure-H clearly indicating thereunder that petitioners and other beneficiaries of allotment are in occupation of sites allotted to them in Sy.No.17 and have constructed residential buildings and they all belonging to socio economically weaker section of the society so as to regularize their possession and title. It is thereafter fourth respondent-Deputy Commissioner has intimated the regional Commissioner, Hassan, to accord sanction in favour of petitioners by regularization of grant of sites by Mandal Panchayath formed in Sy.No.17 in an extent of 4 acres by communication dated 18.08.2015Annexure-J. However, Regional Commissioner has intimated fourth respondent-Deputy Commissioner by communication dated 20.10.2015 (Annexure-K) to regularize the allotment of sites made in favour of

¶69

¶70

petitioners in Sy.No.17 to the extent of 4 acres keeping in mind the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. On account of no steps having been taken by the authorities, as observed hereinabove, petitioners are before this Court.

¶71

Entire records even according to fifth respondent-Assistant Commissioner and fourth respondent-Deputy Commissioner would clearly disclose that petitioners are beneficiaries of allotment of sites made by Mandal Panchayath and they belong to weaker section of society. Said land which ought to have been obtained by way of grant from Government by Mandal Panchayath and then allotted to beneficiaries, seems to have not been undertaken, but on the other hand, Mandal Panchayath having formed the layout in said land has allotted the sites formed in an area of 4 acres in Sy.No.17 and then sought for post facto approval from Government by way of regularization. The grievance of fourth respondent seems to be that land in question being within 5 kms

¶72

¶73

radius of Hassan Municipality it cannot be assigned to Mandal Panchayath to enable said Panchayath to regularize the sites allotted in favour of petitioners/beneficiaries. Fact remains that land in question bearing Sy.No.17 measuring 4 acres has completely lost the characteristic of agricultural land or land reserved for pasturage. However, at an undisputed point of time land in question was a government land and it was declared in the revenue records as ‘gomal’ and as such in the peculiar circumstances of the case fourth respondent-Deputy Commissioner considering the recommendation made by Assistant Commissioner as well as report of Tahsildar and also direction issued by the Regional Commissioner by communication dated 20.10.2015 – Annexure-K will have to take immediate steps to regularize the allotment of sites made in favour of petitioners and others (107 in number) either under Ashraya Yojana or under any other extant scheme/s, which is in vogue and ofcourse with retrospective effect, since sites in question has already been granted to

¶74

¶75

petitioners way-back in the year 1990-91 and they have constructed residential buildings and are residing therein. Hence, steps shall be taken by respondent Nos.2 and 4 as ordered hereinabove and conclude the same expeditiously and at any rate within six (6) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, writ petitions stands disposed of.

¶76

In view of writ petitions having been disposed of, I.A.No.2/18 for early hearing and 1/19 for fixing the date for final hearing, does not survive for consideration and they stand rejected.

¶77

SD/JUDGE

¶78

Smt. Lalitha v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalitha v. the Chief Secretary

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

Sri. Malagi Basappa Vs the Tahsildar

Sri. a H Kuberappa Vs the State of Karnataka

The Agriculturist Processing Industrial Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimhamurthy Vs the Secretary

Smt Channamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Sujatha. N. G. Vs the Tahasildar