Allowed

Shri.Basavanneppa @ Basavaraj S/O Parappa Basapuri v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2020WP/100607/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a land loser of Hidkal Dam project, sought writ directing Tahasildar to implement a 2008 letter regarding his land grant and mutate his name. Court directed Tahasildar to dispose of petitioner's pending representation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit fresh representation. Respondent No. 7 directed to pass appropriate order on representation within eight weeks.

Shri.Basavanneppa @ Basavaraj S/O Parappa Basapuri Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.100607/2019 (LA-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SHRI.BASAVANNEPPA @ BASAVARAJ S/O PARAPPA BASAPURI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: PLOT NO.1406, SECTOR NO.7, VANTAMURI COLONY, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.ANAND.L.SANDRIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HIDKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI.

¶13

THE ADMINISTRATOR GHATAPRABHA AND MALAPRABHA PROJECTS, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI.

¶14

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR LAC & RHN, G & M PROJECT, BELAGAVI.

¶15

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER CRG HIDKAL.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER REHAN, DN. HIDKAL.

¶18

THE TAHASILDAR KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER REHAN, SUB-DIVISION NO.3, HIDKAL, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, AGA FOR R1-R8)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO IMPLEMENT THE LETTER NO.RHN/SR-196 DATED 08.11.2008 I.E. ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.7 to implement the letter No.RHN/SR-196 dated 08.11.2008 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-B.

¶26

¶27

The petitioner states that he is the

¶28

land looser for the Project of Hidkal Dam. Certain measures were taken for rehabilitating the land loosers. In that process, the petitioner claims that he was granted land for agriculture

¶29

purpose at Nesari Teragali village in Khanapur Taluk. It is stated that the petitioner after grant

¶30

had filed declaration under Form No.5 as per Rule 28(1) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for short the ‘Rules’). Further, it is stated

¶31

that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal

¶32

Dam addressed letter to the Special Deputy

¶33

Commissioner, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Water

¶34

Project, Belagavi stating that the land loosers of Ghataprabha Project have been granted land and he also enclosed order for deforestation of the lands in question. The petitioner states that, even though he was granted land in the year

¶35

¶36

1975, till today his name has not been entered in the record of rights. Representation dated 14.11.2018 has been made to the respondent No.7-Tahasildaar by the petitioner. No action has been taken on the representation. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted land under Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner is land looser for the Hidkal Dam Project. He was granted agriculture land in Nesari Teragali village, Khanapur Taluk. It is submitted that he has submitted Form No.5 as per Rule 28(1) of the Rules as far back on 20.06.1975 itself. Even to this date, the

¶39

¶40

petitioner’s name has not been mutated in the records. It is submitted that the petitioner has made representation dated 14.11.2018, but till this date no action has been taken on the said representation.

¶41

Per contra, the learned AGA submits that the lands are forest lands, but however she submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner would be considered in accordance with law.

¶42

The petitioner’s claim that he is the land looser for Hidkal Dam Project. For rehabilitation of land loosers in the Hidkal Dam Project, agriculture lands were granted to the land loosers. The petitioner claims that he was granted land under the Rehabilitation Scheme at Nesari Teragali village in Khanapur Taluk. Annexure-B dated 08.11.2008 would indicate

¶43

¶44

the grant of land made. Annexure-A is Form No.5 under Rule 28(1) of the Rules. Annexure-C is the representation of the petitioner made to respondent No.7-Tahasildar enclosing Form No.5 requesting to mutate his name in the revenue records. The respondent No.7 has a duty to consider the same after verifying the records as to the grant in favour of the petitioner and to examine as to whether it is forest land and thereafter to consider the representation, in accordance with law.

¶45

In that view of the matter, the

¶46

respondent No.7-Tahasildar is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the representation at Annexure-C dated 14.11.2018

¶47

made by the petitioner. The petitioner is also directed to submit one more representation enclosing Form No.5 to respondent No.7-

¶48

¶49

Tahasildar within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter the respondent No.7-

¶50

Tahasildar shall pass appropriate order after verifying the records making sure the grant and the nature of land, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the

¶51

representation from the petitioner.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is

¶53

disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

Shri.Basavanneppa @ Basavaraj S/O Parappa Basapuri v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Basavanneppa @ Basavaraj S/O Parappa Basapuri v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

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.Appasab S/O. Bhimappa Dhavaleshwar Vs Smt.Vidyashri W/O. Irappa Munyal

Shree.Sidharam Shivacharya Vs Sri.Basavaraj Dundappa Karoshi

Shri.Datta S/O Ramchandra Vs Shri.Arvind S/O Shivajirao Jorapur

Urban Roots Vs the Commissioner

Shankar Vs Deputy Commissioner

Appasab S/O Ramu Udagatti Vs the State of Karnataka