Dismissed

Krishna S/O. Mallu Kankonkar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2020WP/100573/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a displaced person with alternate agricultural land, sought writ mandamus for allotment of one acre land for a petrol bunk. The Court noted petitioner lacks legal right to claim such land without an agency license and rejected the petition for failure to show entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected; no direction issued to respondent to consider the representation.

Krishna S/O. Mallu Kankonkar Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 14^th day of January 2020

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

Writ Petition No.100573 of 2018 (GM-Res)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

KRISHNA S/O. MALLU KANKONKAR AGE:65 YEARS, OCC:RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O. H.NO.17, RAMNAGAR, TAL:JOIDA, DIST:KARWAR. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAMESH I. ZIRALI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

A N D

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARWAR, DIST:KARWAR.

¶11

THE SECRETARY, RAMNAGAR REHABILITATION COMMITTEE, KARWAR.

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR TAL:JOIDA, DIST:KARWAR. ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 & R3)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2017 AS PER ANNEXURE-"F".

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 22.12.2017 Annexure-F submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

The petitioner claims that he and his

¶20

ancestors were originally from Supa Village in Uttara Kannada District. They were cultivating their lands and out of cultivation, they were carrying on their livelihood. Their lands were acquired for the purpose of Kali Project and the petitioner is a project displaced person. It is also stated that the Government has given an alternate agricultural land to the petitioner’s family. As the land allotted to them is not suitable for carrying on the agricultural activities, he is requesting for allotment of land in Sy.No.56 at Ramanagar, Belgaum-Goa road for

¶21

¶22

establishment of petrol bunk. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in that regard the petitioner has made a representation at Annexure-F dated 22.12.2017. It is further submitted that the earlier Tahsildar, Joida, by his letter dated 28.02.2017 had recommended his case for grant of one acre of land in Sy.No.56 of Ramnagar village for establishing petrol bunk.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶24

The petitioner claims that he is a displaced

¶25

project person. His lands were acquired for the purpose of Kali Project in Supa Village of Uttara Kannada District. According to the averments in the representation at Annexure-F, the petitioner’s family has been allotted an alternate agricultural land for cultivation. In addition to that, the petitioner is seeking for allotment of land in Sy.No.56 to an extent of one acre in Ramnagar village

¶26

¶27

for establishing of petrol bunk. How the petitioner is entitled to grant of additional land when he has already been allotted an alternate agricultural land is not forthcoming. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of additional land where he intends to establish petrol bunk. Moreover, as a matter of right, the petitioner cannot establish petrol bunk. The writ petitioner has no right to claim for grant of site/land for establishing petrol bunk without he being allotted agency for establishing petrol bunk. No material is placed on record to show that the petitioner has obtained or granted licence to establish petrol bunk under the relevant Act and Rules. Thus, the writ petitioner has failed to establish his right for allotment of land for establishment of petrol bunk. Without there being a legal right for the petitioner and a legal obligation on the part of the respondents,

¶28

¶29

on mere asking, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Kms

Krishna S/O. Mallu Kankonkar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna S/O. Mallu Kankonkar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpa W/O Chandrashekar Chivate Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Devakareppa Bhaskarappa Amashi Vs the State of Karnatka

Smt H Mallamma W/O. Late H Doddahanumanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Sunil S/O Srinivasrao Kulakarni Vs the State of Karnataka

Tukaram S/O Krisnappa Kambale Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Appasab Yamunappa Mudavi, Vs State of Karnataka