Partly allowed

Ugrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2021WP/10488/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this writ petition in part, quashing endorsements refusing to issue saguvali chits. The Court directed the Tahsildar to issue the chits within six weeks, holding that refusal based on lack of gomala land or pending acquisition is not a valid ground against a valid committee resolution.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned endorsements dated 08.01.2016 and 29.12.2015; direction to issue saguvali chits within six weeks.

Ugrappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10488/2016(KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

UGRAPPA S/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O BANNI KUPPE VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶8

CHIKKA THIMMAIAH S/O THIMME GOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O BANNI KUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶9

RANGAIAH S/O KEECHALU RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O BANNI KUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶10

M.BHIMA RAO S/O JOGI RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, REP BY PA HOLDER SMT LEELAVATHI W/O LATE PRABHAKAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶11

¶12

R/O BANNI KUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARAM TALUK & DISTRICT - 562 109.

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

(By SRI. D S HOSMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHAM BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562159 RAMANAGAR.

¶18

THE THASILDAR RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562159 RAMANAGAR.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By SRI.A.R. SRINIVASA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDERS VIDE ANNEXURES-D, E & F, VIDE NO. LND/CR/137/91-92 DATED 08.01.2016, 08.01.2016 & 29.12.2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS RESPECTIVELY.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioners have impugned the different

¶26

Endorsements dated 08.01.2016 (Annexures - D and E), and 29.12.2015 (Annexure-F) issued by the Tahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District [the respondent No. 3]. These Endorsements have been issued informing the petitioners that saguvali chits for the corresponding portions of the lands in Sy.No.68 of Bannikuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk cannot be issued because there is no gomala land in the village.

¶27

The petitioners assert that they were in

¶28

unauthorized occupation of the corresponding extents in the aforesaid survey number. Their application has been duly considered by the competent Committee and they have been issued with Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1996 granting the respective portions and they have also paid the premium as demanded. However, saguvali chits have not been issued and the impugned

¶29

¶30

Endorsements are issued. The learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon the decision of this Court in W.P.No.38594/2011 which is disposed of on 22.03.2013 , submits that the issuance of saguvali chits after the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1996 is a ministerial act and the same cannot be refused either on the ground that the lands are not available because of some acquisition proceedings or on the ground that there would be no gomala land in the village. The authorities, if they could so assert or be aggrieved by the Committee's resolution and the subsequent issuance of the Official Memorandum dated 05.07.1996, they should impugn the decision to regularize unauthorized occupations in a manner known to law.

¶31

The learned Additional Government Advocate, who is assisted by Sri. Bhaskar, Shirasthedar, Taluk Office, Ramanagara [who is present with the records], submits that the genuineness of the Official Memorandum

¶32

¶33

dated 05.07.1996 as per Annexure-A or the subsequent payment cannot be disputed. The records bear testimony to these proceedings. However, an extent of about 40 acres in Sy.No.68 of Bannikuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk has been acquired for the benefit of Bangalore – Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) and the remaining extent of about 17 acres in Sy.No.68 of Bannikuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk is in the possession of the private individuals. Unless the petitioners are in possession, they cannot be issued with saguvali chits.

¶34

It is obvious that the Tahasildhar, who is enjoined under the provisions of Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966 to either issue the saguvali chit or dismiss the application for regularization of unauthorized occupation, has not taken any action either for issuance of saguvali chit or dismissal of the application. Instead, the impugned endorsement is issued informing the petitioners that if saguvali chits are granted

¶35

¶36

there would not be gomal land for the village. The impugned Endorsements cannot be sustained on the short ground that unless the order of the Committee and the subsequent Official Memorandum are set at naught in a manner known to law, the saguvali chits cannot be refused. The saguvali chits also cannot be refused on the ground that the lands are acquired for the benefit of a third party entity. Even if any portion of the subject lands is acquired for the purposes as aforesaid, the petitioners would be entitled to, upon issuance of saguvali chits, to claim benefit payable to them in law as a consequence of the acquisition. The statement that the Tahsildar will have to ascertain whether the petitioners are in possession would be a post facto exercise, and if they are not in possession, they will have to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. However, the Authorities, subject to all just exceptions in law, may have recourse to law as against the official memorandum dated 05.07.1996. As such, the following:

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

a) The petition is allowed in part quashing the impugned Endorsements dated 08.01.2016 (Annexures - D and E) and 29.12.2015 (Annexure-F) and directing the Tahsildar, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara, to issue saguvali chits. The saguvali chits issued would be subject to the observations in the course of this order.

¶40

b) The respondents shall issue saguvali chits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Ugrappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ugrappa 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Javaramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Balajee Deekshith Bobba Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Narasimhappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Arulappa Vs the State of Karnataka

C D Mukundappa Vs State of Karnataka

T R Subbalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka