Allowed

Sri.Satteppa S/O Mutteppa Ani v. the Tahshildar

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2020WP/106075/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition challenging delays in granting land mutation to rehabilitation beneficiaries of a dam project. The Court directed the Tahasiladar to consider representations and verify records, ordering submission of necessary documents within two weeks. The Tahasiladar must decide on the mutation within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Tahasiladar directed to consider representations and pass an order on mutation within eight weeks. Petitioners to submit additional representation enclosing Form No.5 within two weeks.

Sri.Satteppa S/O Mutteppa Ani Vs the Tahshildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.106075/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) & WRIT PETITION Nos.110455-0465/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.SATTEPPA S/O MUTTEPPA ANI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶8

SMT.BAGAVVA W/O SHANKAR KAMBAR AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶9

SRI.MUNNEPPA S/O YALLAPPA MAGADUM AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶10

SMT.RAMAVVA W/O BALAPPA NAIK AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶11

SMT.YALLAVVA S/O SATTEPPA GANJI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶12

SRI.HOLEPPA S/O YALLAPPA PATIL AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶13

SMT.SAKREVVA W/O SOMALING SAJALE AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶14

SRI.LAGAMAPPA S/O SHANTAPPA KONKANI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶15

SMT.DUNDAVVA W/O ANIL DESAI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶16

SMT.BALAVVA W/O LAGAMANNA ANI AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶17

¶18

SMT.MANNEVVA W/O NAYAKAPPA MAGADUM AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶19

SRI.BASAVARAJ S/O BAALAPPA NAIK AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶20

ALL R/O ASHOKNAGAR, NERSE TQ:KHANAPUR, DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶21

... PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. PRUTHVI K.S., ADV. FOR SRI. SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR AND SMT. PRIYANKA H PAWAR, ADVS.)

¶23

AND

¶24

THE TAHSHILDAR TAHSHILDAR OFFICE, KHANAPUR, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶25

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

¶26

... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶28

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1^ST RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION AS PER ANNEXURES-B1 TO B13.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are before this Court under

¶33

Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the

¶34

applications/representations as per AnnexuresB1 to B12.

¶35

The petitioners state that they are the land loosers for the Project of Hidkal Dam. Certain measures were taken for rehabilitating the land loosers. In that process, the petitioners claim that they were granted lands for agriculture purpose at Nesari Teragali village in Khanapur Taluk. It is stated that the petitioners after grant 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 that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam addressed letter

¶36

¶37

to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Land

¶38

Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Water 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 petitioners state that, even though they were granted lands in the year 1975, till today their names have not been entered in the record of rights. Representations have been made to the 1^st respondent by the petitioners to mutate their names into the revenue records in respect of the lands granted to them. No action has been taken on the representations. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondents.

¶40

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners

¶42

would submit that the petitioners were granted

¶43

lands under Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioners are the land loosers for the Hidkal Dam Project. They were granted agriculture land in Nesari Teragali village, Khanapur Taluk. It is submitted that they have submitted Form No.5 as per Rule 28(1) of the Rules as far back in 1975 itself. Even to this date, the petitioners’ names have not been mutated in the records. It is submitted that the petitioners have made representations vide Annexures-B1 to B12, but till this date no action has been taken on the said representations.

¶44

Per contra, the learned HCGP submits

¶45

that the lands are forest lands, but however he submits that the representations submitted by

¶46

¶47

the petitioners would be considered in

¶48

accordance with law.

¶49

The petitioners claim that they are the land loosers for Hidkal Dam Project. For rehabilitation of land loosers in the Hidkal Dam

¶50

Project, agriculture lands were granted to the land loosers. The petitioners claim that they were granted land under the Rehabilitation Scheme at Nesari Teragali village in Khanapur Taluk. Annexures-A1 to A12 are Form No.V under Rule 28(1) of the Rules. Annexures-B1 to B12 are the applications/representations of the petitioners made to respondent No.1-Tahasildar requesting to mutate their names in the revenue records. The respondent No.1 has a duty to consider the same after verifying the records as to the grant in favour of the petitioners and to examine as to whether it is forest land and

¶51

¶52

thereafter to consider the representations, in accordance with law.

¶53

In that view of the matter, the

¶54

respondent No.1-Tahasildar is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law on the applications/representations of the petitioners at Annexures-B1 to B12. The petitioners are also directed to submit one more representation enclosing Form No.5 to respondent No.1Tahasildar within a period of two weeks’ from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thereafter the respondent No.1Tahasildar to 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 representation from the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶55

¶56

Accordingly, the writ petitions are

¶57

disposed of.

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

JTR

Sri.Satteppa S/O Mutteppa Ani v. the Tahshildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Satteppa S/O Mutteppa Ani v. the Tahshildar

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

Kum.Sakkubai D/O Parimalabai, Vs Commissioner

M/S.Yashsvi Developers Vs the Authorized Officer

Sri.Suresh S/O Adiveppa Mareguddi Vs Smt.Geeta W/O Suresh Mareguddi

Shri. Prahlad S/O Bhimrao Guttal Vs Smt. Susheela Bai W/O Ramchandra Rao Hublikar

Shivabasappa S/O Sateppa Shakki Vs Smt.Gurawwa W/O Venkappa Patil

Mahabaleshwar S/O Ganapati Bhat Vs Shankar S/O Ramakrishna Bhat