Partly allowed

Shivakumar v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2021WP/14076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging a report and eviction notices under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, directed against multiple petitioners. The court quashed the order holding that proceedings cannot be initiated while regularization appeals and applications remain sub judice.

What did the court decide?

The report dated 23.02.2018 and notices issued by the Second respondent are quashed. The First respondent is directed to dispose of the pending appeal. The Second respondent is directed to decide pend

Shivakumar Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 14076/2019 (KLR/REG)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶8

B. S. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶9

B R PURUSHOTHAM S/O RUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶10

SIDDAPPA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶11

SMT GOWRAMMA W/O KATTIGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶12

SMT MEENAKSHI W/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶13

KIRANA B. V. S/O VASANTH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

LOKESHA B. N S/O NIRVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA HOBLI- 573102 ARAKALGODU TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI.R.S. RAVI., ADVOCATE) AND :

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAKLESHAPURA SUB DIVISION SAKALESHAPURA HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR ARAKALGUD TALUK ARKALGUD - 573 102.

¶20

THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION SHIVAMOGGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT REP BY ITS SECRETARY - 577 201.

¶21

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR ARKALGUD TALUK, ARKALGUD, MALLIPATNA HOBLI, ARKALGUD - 573 102.

¶22

... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR NO. MA.NA.KA.U.THA/672/17-18 REPORT, SUBMITTED TO 2^ND RESPONDNET TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 23.02.2018 ANNEXURET; ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE 2^ND AND 4^TH RSPONDENT NOTICES DATED 27.11.2018 IN NO. SA. NA.KA. MALLIPATNA 10/18-19 OF THE 2^ND PETITIONER ANNEXURE-T1, DATED 11.12.2018 IN NO. OTTUVARI/ TERAVU. 11/2017-18 OF 4^TH PETITIONERS'S ANNEXURET2, DATED 31.05.2018 IN NO. OTTUVARI/TERAVU 11/2017-18, OF 5^TH PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE-T3 DATED 31.05.2018 IN NO. OTTUVARI/TERAVU. 11/2017 18 OF 6^TH PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE-T4 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioners have filed this petition calling in question the Report dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure-T) submitted by the Deputy Tahasildar, Mallipatana Hobli to the Tahasildar, Arakalagudu Taluk (the second respondent) and the subsequent notices (Annexure – T1-T4) issued by the second respondent to some of the petitioners for their eviction from certain blocks of lands

¶29

¶30

in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District.

¶31

The petitioners' case is that the first and the

¶32

second petitioners are the owners in possession of certain blocks of lands in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District. Their respective predecessors-in-title were in unauthorized occupation of such blocks, but such unauthorized occupation was duly regularized way back in the year 1997. However, the Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshpura, Hassan District (the first respondent) cancelled such regularization. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, in the appeal filed by them/their predecessor-in-title in RA No. 32/20062007 by order dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure-S) set-aside the first respondent’s order and restored the appeal for reconsideration. This appeal is still pending

¶33

¶34

consideration before the first respondent. The other petitioners are also in possession of certain other blocks of lands in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District, and they have filed necessary applications in the prescribed Form for regularization of their unauthorized occupation. These applications are also still pending consideration.

¶35

The petitioners contend that despite the above, the fourth respondent - the Deputy Tahasildar, Mallipatna Hobli - has furnished the impugned Report dated 23.02.2018 recommending reserving an extent of 1 acre in the land in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District for formation of sites under the ’Ashraya Scheme’, and thereafter, the second respondent has issued impugned

¶36

¶37

notice proposing eviction under section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends

¶39

that with the appeal restored for reconsideration by the first respondent in terms of the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29.01.2008 in RA No. 32/2006-2007 and the application filed by the other petitioners for regularization of their unauthorized occupation of the different blocks in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District, pending consideration, the proceedings under section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 cannot be initiated, nor can there be any reservation of the land in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District for the Ashraya Scheme in prejudice to the petitioners' interest.

¶40

¶41

The learned Additional Government Advocate is not able to controvert that the appeal before the first respondent after the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 29.01.2008 in RA No. 32/2006-2007 have not been disposed of or that the other petitioners have not filed applications in the prescribed Form for regularization of their unauthorized occupation. If these petitioners have filed such applications, they must be disposed of in accordance with law. The learned Additional Government Advocate also cannot, in view of the report by the Deputy Tahasildar, Mallipatna Hobli (as per Annexure-T) dispute that these petitioners are in possession of the respective blocks of lands in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District.

¶42

In the aforesaid undisputed circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the concerned must

¶43

¶44

take necessary steps for disposal of the appeal filed impugning the regularization in favour of the first and the second petitioners/their predecessors-in-title and the applications filed by the other petitioners in the prescribed Form (after ascertaining such applications are indeed filed) before proceedings under section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 are initiated against them or any measures are taken for reserving any portion of the land in Sy No. 23 of Basavanahalli Village, Mallipatna Hobli, Arakalagodu Taluk, Hassan District for the different schemes of the State. Therefore, both the impugned report dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure-T) and the notices (Annexure-T1-4) cannot be sustained, and writ petition will have to be disposed of with further directions. Hence, the following

¶45

ORDER

¶46

[a] The writ petition is allowed in

¶47

part, and the Report dated 23.02.2018 by the

¶48

¶49

Deputy Tahasildar, Mallipatna Hobli (Annexure-T) and the notices (Annexure-T1-4) issued by the Second respondent – the Tahasildar, Arakalagudu taluk are quashed.

¶50

[b] The first respondent-the

¶51

Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshpura SubDivision, Sakaleshpura is directed to issue notice of hearing of the appeal restored by the Deputy Commissioner in RA No. 32/20062007 and dispose of such proceedings at the earliest.

¶52

[c] The second respondent - the Tahasildar, Arakalagudu Taluk is directed to take necessary measures for ensuring that decisions are taken on the applications filed

¶53

¶54

by some of the petitioners for regularization of their unauthorized occupation.

¶55

[d] Each of the petitioners shall file a

¶56

detailed representation in these regards before the first and the second respondents, as the case may be, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

Shivakumar v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakumar v. the Assistant Commissioner

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. Kempanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Manjunath Vs the Chief Secretary

Ravisha Vs the Secretary

M Narayana Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Smt Subbamma Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Sri Nagarajappa Vs the State of Karnataka