Allowed

Sri Kariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2021WP/13624/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging endorsements regarding occupancy rights in disputed lands. Court held that since tribunal proceedings are pending, directions for entry changes cannot be granted but Land Tribunal must dispose of the matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directs Land Tribunal to dispose of pending proceedings within six months; Petitioners or Respondent-5 may apply for early hearing date.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 13624/2018 (KLR RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI.KARIYAPPA, S/O DODDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT JEENAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶8

SRI.DODDAPPA, S/O GULAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT JINAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶9

SMT.SAVITRAMMA, W/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT JEENAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶10

¶11

SMT.KAMALAMMA, W/O MUDUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT JEENAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶12

SRI.A.CHANDRAPPA, S/O DODDAPPA ADIGER, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT JEENAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶13

SRI.PRADEEP, S/O DODDAPPA ADIGER, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT JEENAHALLI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI VIGHNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, RESPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-56001.

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶19

¶20

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION DAVANAGERE-577001.

¶21

TAHASILDAR,

¶22

HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001.

¶23

BEERALINGESHWARA DEVARU, JEENAHALLI, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577001, BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶24

….RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. H.MALLAN GOUDA ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WIRT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED.27.1.2018 IN NO.R.A/ CR-107/2017-18 PASSED BY R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-G CONFIRMING THE ORDER/ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.12.2017 IN NO.L.R.F.C.R.82/17-18 PASSED BY R-4 AS PER ANNEXURE –E; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO IMPLEMENT THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE IN R.A. NO. 83/2012-17 DATED 16.12.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-C, BY CANCELLING MRH NO. 161/2011-12 AND CONTINUE THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS OVER THE LANDS IN QUESTION IN THE R.T.C. AS THAT WAS EXISTING PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF MRH NO. 161/2011-12 AND ETC.,

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent [the fifth respondent] as also the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard with their consent for final disposal.

¶31

The petitioners, who claim rights to certain portions of lands in Survey No. 92, 110 and 171 of Jeenahalli, Honnahalli Hobli, Davanagere District purportedly because they have filed applications in Form No.7, have filed this petition calling in question the Endorsement dated 11.12.2017 in No.LRF.CR. 82/17-18 (Annexure-E) and the Endorsement dated 27.01.2018 in No.RA/CR-107/2017-18 (Annexure-G). These endorsements are issued by the Tahsildar, Honnali Taluk, Davanagere District [the fourth respondent] and the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere

¶32

¶33

District [the second respondent] respectively informing the petitioners that their request for change of revenue entries cannot be considered in view of the fact that the proceedings in No. LRF (1).INA 1/1987-88 is restored for reconsideration.

¶34

It is undisputed that the proceedings in LRF No. (1) INA 1/1987-88 are pending consideration even as of date and therefore, the question of granting occupancy rights to the subject lands in favour of the petitioners is open for consideration. There cannot be directions in favour of the petitioners at this stage except for a direction to the Land Tribunal, Honnalli, Davanagere to expeditiously dispose of proceedings in No. LRF (1).INA 1/1987-88, and in any event within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

¶36

Since it is also undisputed that the Land

¶37

Tribunal, Honnali has not scheduled a date of hearing, either the petitioners or the fifth respondent shall be at liberty to make an application with the Land Tribunal, for an early date of hearing. It is needless to observe that the Land Tribunal, Honnali will have to consider the material on record in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the Rules thereunder.

¶38

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

mbb

Sri Kariyappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kariyappa 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Y Dinakar Shetty Vs the Tahsildar

Jana Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Bank of Baroda

K Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs the Dy. Commissioner

Sri Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sridhar Kakarla Vs the State of Karnataka