Disposed

Smt Javanamma v. Divisional Forest Officer

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2021WP/10269/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking mandamus for a computerized RTC. The court held that the authority must first ascertain boundaries for a notified reserve forest overlapping the land. The petition was disposed of by permitting a limited timeline for representation and decision.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner must file a representation within four weeks; the Respondent Tahsildar must consider it within twelve weeks and decide in accordance with law.

Smt Javanamma Vs Divisional Forest Officer — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10269/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT JAVANAMMA W/O DODDASIDDASHETTY AGED 70 YEARS, R/AT HITTHALDODDI, KEMPANAPALYA POST, KASABA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUKA, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By MS. SARASWATHI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KOLLEGAL DIVISION, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLEGAL TALUKA CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT - 571 313.

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(By SRI.SRINIVASA GOWDA.R, AGA)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST AND ISSUE COMPUTERIZED RTC VIDE ANNEXURE-C (HAND WRITTEN RTC) DATED 18.03.2019, AND THEREBY PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner, who asserts the benefit of grant of 5 acres in survey No. 359 of Kunagalli Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagara District [‘ the subject property’ ] has filed this petition for a mandamus to the Tahsildar, Kollegal taluk, Chamarajanagara District (the second respondent) to consider her representation and to issue computerized RTC for the subject property.

¶20

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner’s representation has not been considered because certain lands in the villages of Kunagalli, Jakkahalli and Mudigunda are reserved for ‘ Madhulamai Betta Reserve Forest ’ under Notification dated 01.12.2015 and the authorities were engaged in ascertaining the boundaries of the Reserve Forest. In Sy. No.359 of Kunagalli Village, an extent of 415.80

¶21

¶22

acres out of the total extent of 434.29 acres is reserved for this forest. The authorities will have to ascertain whether the land claimed by the petitioner will be within the notified area. The second respondent would consider the representation within a reasonable time.

¶23

In the light of these submissions, the petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a representation with the Tahsildar, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District, the second respondent enclosing a certified copy of this order. The petitioner may file such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, and the second respondent, within twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, shall consider the same and decide in accordance with law.

¶24

SD/JUDGE

¶25

AN/-

Smt Javanamma v. Divisional Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Javanamma v. Divisional Forest 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

Ugrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

C D Mukundappa Vs State of Karnataka

T R Subbalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Dhanalakshmi Quarry Vs Thasildar

Narayanaswamy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri a Ramakrishnam Raju Vs the State of Karnataka