Dismissed

Shri. Mallappa Kariyappa Gattimani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2020WP/101996/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions filed by agriculturists belonging to SC/ST categories seeking regularization of unauthorized land cultivation. The High Court rejected the petitions, holding that fresh consideration of applications was not possible after the Deputy Commissioner had already issued an endorsement rejecting them, granting liberty to challenge the endorsement.

What did the court decide?

Petitions rejected with liberty to petitioners to challenge the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner if so advised.

Shri. Mallappa Kariyappa Gattimani Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

Dated this the 10^th day of January 2020

¶3

Before

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

Writ Petition Nos.101996-102001 of 2018 (KLR-LG)

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shri Mallappa Kariyappa Gattimani, Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶8

Veerappa Biddadeppa Banger, Age 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶9

Basappa Biddadeppa Banger, Age 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶10

Parameshappa Puttappa Mucchatti, Age 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶11

Hanumantappa Hanumantappa Kollapur, Age 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶12

¶13

Basappa Durgappa Doddamani, Since Deceased by his L.Rs.

¶14

Gangawwa W/o.Basaventappa Doddamani, Age 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶15

Durgappa S/o.Basaventappa Doddamani, Age 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶16

Guddappa S/o.Basappa Doddamani, Age 29 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri.

¶17

Hanumanthappa S/o.Basappa Doddamani, Age 27 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.: Bisalahalli, Tq.: Byadagi, District Haveri. … Petitioners

¶18

(By Shri Harshawardhan M.Patil for Shri Patil M.H., Advocate)

¶19

And:

¶20

The State of Karnataka, R/by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Multistore Building, Bengaluru.

¶21

The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, Haveri.

¶22

The Assistant Commissioner, Haveri Sub Division, Haveri.

¶23

¶24

The Tahasildar, Byadagi Taluk, Byadagi.

¶25

The Land Grants Committee, Byadagi Taluk, Byadagi. … Respondents

¶26

(By Shri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP for R1 to R5)

¶27

These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent No.5 to consider the application in Form No.53, which are produced at Annexures-B to B5.

¶28

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent

¶31

Nos.1 to 5.

¶32

Petitioners are before this Court under

¶33

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a mandamus directing respondent No.5 to consider the application in Form No.53, which are produced at Annexures-B to B5. Petitioners are claiming that they are agriculturists in unauthorized cultivation of government/forest lands at Bisalahalli, Byadagi Taluk

¶34

¶35

in Sy.NO.26/2 since long time. It is their case that the petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category. They had made an application in Form No.53 as at Annexures-B to B5 seeking regularization of their unauthorized occupation of the lands in question.

¶36

It is seen from Annexures-E to E5 that the applications of the petitioners were considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and endorsement dated 15.10.1999 were issued stating that the petitioners are not cultivating the lands in question as on that date and hence, their applications cannot be entertained.

¶37

The present writ petitions are filed again seeking to consider the same applications. When the authorities, after considering the applications issued endorsement, again consideration of the said

¶38

¶39

applications once again would not arise. Hence, the present writ petitions are rejected with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the endorsement, if they are

¶40

so advised in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Vnp*

Shri. Mallappa Kariyappa Gattimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mallappa Kariyappa Gattimani 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

Honnnavva Ningappa Huralikoppi Vs the State of Karnataka

Vasanthrao S/O Ramarao Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Veeranna S/O Shivamurteppakolhar Vs the Secretary

Miss. Sohila D/O Ramdas Kanade Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt.Parvathamma W/O Late Mallikarjunaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa S/O Basappa Kekalamatti Vs the State of Karnataka