Disposed

Smt.Lakshmidevamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021WP/14202/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that proceedings under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act involving a claim of ownership by the State are distinct from earlier proceedings regarding occupancy rights. The petitioners were granted an opportunity to respond to the notice before any order is passed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by treating the notice as a show-cause notice and directing the respondents to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Merits on merit were left open.

Smt.Lakshmidevamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.14202 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O LATE GUDDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

¶9

SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE M.G.GUDDA THIMMAIAH

¶10

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT SY.NO.80/P3 GIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE (METI PALYA) KADABAGERE POST DASANAHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH - 562 130

¶12

SMT. PADMALATHA W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA D/O LATE M.G.GUDDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶13

SRI VENKATACHALA S/O LATE M.G.GUDDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶14

SMT. KALAVATHI W/O LATE SRINIVAS S/O LATE M.G.GUDDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶15

SMT. TRIVENI W/O M.K.MAHADEVAIAH

¶16

S/O LATE M.G.GUDDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶17

SMT. SATHYABHAMA S.G. W/O RAJANNA S/O LATE M.G.GUDDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶18

¶19

8. SRI S.G.MOHANKUMAR

¶20

S/O LATE M.G.GUDDA THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 8 ARE R/AT NO.159, 'SRI LAKSHMI' 3^RD MAIN, 5^TH CROSS R.H.B.C.S. LAYOUT ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 091 ... PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SHRI PRASANNA B.R, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶24

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION OFFICE OF DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶25

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 009

¶26

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 009 ... RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SHRI A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶28

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-I, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU, THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Sri Srinivas A.R, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents.

¶34

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶35

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order dated 15.09.2020 in RRT(2)(N)CR/35/2001-02 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner-I, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru, the 2^nd respondent vide ANNEXURE-L and all further proceedings thereon.

¶36

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 01.04.2021 in No.RRT(D)CR/721/2018-19 issued by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, the 4^th respondent vide ANNEXURE-K.

¶37

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus direct the respondent No.3 to restore the revenue entry in the name of the petitioners in respect of land bearing Sy.No.80, new Sy.No.80/P15 measuring to an extent of 10 Acres, situated at Giddenahalli Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk."

¶38

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once earlier this Court in Writ Petition No.30895/2010 vide its order dated 16.11.2015 had already dealt with the matter and, therefore, the

¶39

¶40

present impugned proceedings could not have been initiated.

¶41

A perusal of the order dated 16.11.2015 indicates that in those proceedings what was challenged was the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, "the Land Revenue Act") on the ground that the occupancy rights have been granted under the Mysuru (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner would not have jurisdiction over the matter. This Court accepted the said submission and quashed the proceedings. In the present proceedings, what has been challenged is the notice issued under Section 67 (2) of the Land Revenue Act, wherein the State is claiming to be the owner of the land.

¶42

In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that both the proceedings are different. The earlier proceedings were on account of certain disputes between the persons claiming occupancy rights and

¶43

¶44

the Deputy Commissioner exercised jurisdiction to correct the revenue records. In the present case, the Government is claiming ownership. Therefore, the petitioner has to answer to Annexure-L and place all relevant material for consideration of the same.

¶45

In view thereof, Annexure-L dated 15.09.2020 is treated as a show cause notice permitting the petitioners to submit such representations and documents as they deem fit. The respondents shall also provide the petitioners with an opportunity of being heard before passing necessary order.

¶46

All contentions on merit are left open.

¶47

With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

AHB

Smt.Lakshmidevamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Lakshmidevamma 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

Bhawandas Sharma Vs Indian Overseas Bank

G O Madhu Vs S M Gowda

Amit Gautam Vs Indecomm Global Services (Mauritius)

Smt Ahalya Vs Attimabbe Vidya Mandira Trust

Mr. Vittal Nayak Vs Mr. Baburaya Nayak

Smt. Saritha N Doshi Vs State of Karnataka