Allowed

Shantha Jogi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2021WP/10193/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an endorsement stating that a request to cancel an agricultural land conversion order could not be made. The High Court held that instead of directing a technical appeal, the conversion order must be quashed to restore the land's agricultural status since no statutory bar exists and the petitioner forewent a refund claim.

What did the court decide?

Official Memorandum dated 12.04.2017 and endorsement dated 25.08.2020 quashed; revenue entries restored as agricultural land.

Shantha Jogi Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10193 /2021 (KLR/CON)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SHANTHA JOGI W/O LATE KRISHNA JOGI AGE 83 YEARS REP BY HER SON PRABHAKAR JOGI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT 'SHEELA NIVASA' MAIN ROAD VARANGA VILLAGE, MUNIYAL POST HEBRI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. PRASAD HEGDE K B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHADRI MANIPAL UDUPI - 576 104.

¶12

TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE HEBRI UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(By SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶16

¶17

ISSUE AN ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF THE MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.05.2019 FOR WITHDRAWAL/CANCELATION OF CONVERSION ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents are heard for final disposal.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the endorsement dated 25.08.2020 issued by the office of the Tahsildar, Hebri Taluk, Udupi District [the Second respondent], informing the petitioner that his request for cancellation of the Official Memorandum dated 12.04.2017 cannot be cancelled

¶22

and the petitioner’s only remedy would be under Section

¶23

¶24

49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 'the KLR Act'.

¶25

The petitioner's land measuring 0.29 acres in Sy. No.85/5 of Varanga Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District, [ the subject land ] is permitted to be diverted from agricultural to non-agricultural commercial uses under the provisions of Section 95 (2) of the KLR Act by the Official Memorandum dated 12.04.2017. The petitioner's case is that the subject land would not be conducive for effective commercial development if necessary set back and road margins are maintained and as such the petitioner does not intend to put the subject land to commercial use. The petitioner, who seeks cancellation of the Official Memorandum dated 12.04.2017 on such ground, is categorical that she would not make any claim against the State for refund of the amount paid pursuant to the demand issued in that regard.

¶26

¶27

In these facts and circumstances of the case,

¶28

and when there is no statutory prohibition against cancellation of the Official Memorandum dated 12.04.2017, the Court is of the considered view that instead of allowing a technical objection and directing the petitioner to file an appeal for cancellation of the Official Memorandum dated 12.04.2017, the Official Memorandum dated 12.04.2017 must be quashed. Therefore the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

[a] The petition is accordingly allowed, and the Official Memorandum bearing No.CDS.LNA[2] CR.14012[12]/91/2017 E. No.14311 dated 12.04.2017 of the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, Udupi [Annexure-D] and the endorsement bearing No.ALN[2]CR/29/2020-21 dated 25.08.2020

¶31

¶32

of the Tahsildar, Hebri Taluk, Udupi District, are quashed.

¶33

[b] The Tahsildar, Hebri Taluk, Udupi District, consequent to this order, shall restore the revenue entries for the land in Sy. No.85/5 measuring 0.29 acres of Varanga Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District in favour of the petitioner as agricultural land.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

AN/-

Shantha Jogi v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantha Jogi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cushman and Wakefield India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Abdul Hameed Memorial

Sri.K.C.Dinesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ranganath K R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Narasimharaju Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Msk Shelters Vs M/S Developer Group India Pvt. Ltd.