Disposed

Sri J G Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2021WP/13522/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka accepted the writ petition as a representation and directed the Principal Secretary of the Department of Revenue to inquire into grievances regarding illegal grants of government land within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal Secretary of the Department of Revenue to look into grievances regarding illegal land grants and report within three months.

Sri J G Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.13522/2020 (GM-RES-PIL)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI J.G.KRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE J.N.GIDDE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A KASKEBYLU VILLAGE GONIBIDU HOBLI MUDIGERE TALUK

¶9

CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577132

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560001

¶14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101

¶15

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR SUB-DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577132

¶18

REVENUE INSPECTOR MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577132

¶19

VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577132

¶20

REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION MYSORE-570001

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI V.SREENIDHI, AGA)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO TAKE UP THE ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE ILLEGAL GRANTS MADE BY THE REVENUE OFFICIALS AS PER THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2013 AT ANNEXURE-A AND 09.12.2013 AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONCLUDE THE SAME WITHIN A TIME FRAME AND SUBMIT THE REPORT TO THIS COURT AND ETC.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶28

The grievance made in this petition is about the

¶29

alleged failure of the authorities of the State Government to take action in cases of illegal grant of lands which have been already identified. The petitioner is relying upon the correspondence annexed to the petition.

¶30

The learned Additional Government Advocate is right in submitting that before seeking a writ of mandamus, as per the settled law, the petitioner ought to have made a representation seeking redressal of his grievances.

¶31

In this case, reliance is placed on the

¶32

correspondence made between the different Government Officers

¶33

¶34

at different levels which indicate that large number of cases of illegal grant of forest and Government lands have been noticed.

¶35

In view of the fact that the issue is of illegal grant of public properties, it will be appropriate if the entire issue is looked into by the Principal Secretary of the Department of Revenue by treating this petition as a representation.

¶36

6. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶37

(i) We direct the Principal Secretary of the Department of Revenue or any other Senior Officer appointed by him to look into the grievances made in the petition by treating the same as a representation;

¶38

(ii) The Principal Secretary or the Senior Officer nominated by him will ascertain whether appropriate legal actions have been initiated in respect of the identified illegal grants;

¶39

(iii) Needless to add that if it is found that in certain cases, action is not initiated for recovery of the

¶40

¶41

Government property or the public property, the State Government will issue necessary directions;

¶42

(iv) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today. The steps taken by the State Government shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of four months from today;

¶43

(v) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of;

¶44

(vi) The pending interlocutory application does not survive

¶45

and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

bkv

Sri J G Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri J G Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri Bhuvaneshwara Gowda Vs Sri L K Athheq

Sri Syed Abdul Bary Vs the Secretary

Sri G.N. Lakshmipathy Naicker Vs Sri G.M. Gangadhara Swamy K.A.S

M/S Bhushan Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Amitabh Sinha Vs Xxxx (Vide Order Dated 11.06.2025)

Smt. v. Pushpa Vs Sri. H. R. Mahadev