Dismissed

Sri S Thimappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2021WP/11597/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order denying regularization of unauthorized land cultivation in Shivamogga District. The court noted that grants were made to other persons for land in the same survey number. It dismissed the writ petition while directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's application in light of those grants.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed subject to direction for respondents to consider petitioner's application in light of other similar grants.

Sri S Thimappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.11597 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S. THIMAPPA S/O LATE NYAMATHI THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KALLUGANGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 225.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BY ITS SECRETARY M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGA-577 201

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGA SUB DIVISION SHIVAMOGA-577 201

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGA -577 201

¶16

¶17

THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577 201 BY ITS SECRETARY

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 03.02.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN LND NO.574/2017-18 IN WHICH THE PETITIONER QUESTIONED ORDER 03.07.2002 PASSED IN NO.98/99-2000 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF 3-00 ACRES OF THE LAND IN SY.NO.13/52 OF KALLUGANGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA VIDE ANNEXURE-A..

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 03.07.2002 passed by the respondent No.5 in case No.98/99-2000 which was confirmed by the respondent No.3 in case No.LND:574/2017-18 dated 03.02.2018. By

¶24

the aforesaid orders the request of the petitioner for grant of 3 acres of land in Sy. No.13/52 of Kalluganguru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk was rejected.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner claims that he does not own any land but was unauthorisedly cultivating the land measuring 3 acres in Sy. No.13/52 of Kalluganguru Village for paddy and arecanut for the last 30-40 years. He claimed that he had filed an application in Form 50 & 53 before the concerned authority to grant the above land. He claimed that his father was earlier cultivating the land and the entries made in column 12 of the RTC for the year 197980 stood testimony to the above fact. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.5 in terms of the order dated 03.07.2002 in case No.98/99-2000 on the ground that the land lay within 5 kms from the municipal limits. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the respondent No.3 who disposed off the case and remitted the case back to the respondent No.5 in terms of the order dated 03.02.2018.

¶27

The petitioner claims that a person named Smt.Jayamma w/o Yellappa and Sri. Hucharayappa s/o Yellappa had also filed application in Form No.53 for grant

¶28

¶29

of 3 acres each in Sy.No.13 of Kalluganguru Village. The Application so filed was rejected initially and thereafter an appeal was filed in which it was declared that their unauthorized cultivation was liable to be regularised. The petitioner claimed that the respondent No.4 has now issued grant certificates in favour of the said persons on 12.03.2018. He therefore submitted that the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.3 failed to apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore prayed that the orders passed by them be set-aside.

¶30

The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the respondent No.3 has allowed the appeal and has remitted case back to the respondent No.5 to ascertain whether the land in question lay within 5 kms from the municipal limits and to take appropriate decision. He submitted that the petitioner cannot claim that he is aggrieved by the order as the rights of the petitioner is not yet decided. He therefore submitted that the case of the

¶31

¶32

petitioner would be considered by the respondent No.5 in accordance with law.

¶33

I have perused the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by the respondent No.4 granting 3 acres of land in Sy.No.13 of Kalluganguru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk to Hucharayappa as well as the grant certificate in favour of Smt.Jayamma in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.13 of Kalluganguru Village. It is not known as to how the said land could be granted to Smt.Jayamma and Hucharayappa if it lay within 5 kms from Municipal limits.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, though the order passed by the respondents does not call for any interference at this stage, yet the Application of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the light of the grant of portions of land in Sy.No.13 of Kalluganguru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk in favour of Smt.Jayamma and Hucharayappa.

¶35

¶36

Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed subject

¶37

however to the observations contained above.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

NBM

Sri S Thimappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Thimappa 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

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited Vs M Manjula

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanthappa Vs Rathnamma

Sri C R Raghavendra Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri. H.M. Jagadish Vs Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

S Peter @ Pradeep Vs Mrs Sivagamy