Disposed

Walter Monthero v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2021WP/14307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge heard a writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner's observation that certain lands were gomal lands and the Tribunal's appeal dismissal. The court held that as the petitioner had a pending application before the Section 94A Committee, the Committee must consider it independently of earlier administrative observations. Petition disposed with no stay order mentioned.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed directing the Committee to consider the petitioner's application for grant of lands independent of observations by the Deputy Commissioner or the Tribunal.

Walter Monthero Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 14307/2020 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR. WALTER MONTHERO S/O LATE LOUIS MONTHERO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KANDELU HOUSE KAROPADI VILLAGE P.O KAROPADI - 574 279 BANTWAL TALUK., DK.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. M. SUDHAKAR PAI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU - 575 001,(DK).

¶12

RAMADAS HEGDE S/O MUKUNDA HEGDE ABED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT ARYADURGA HOUSE KUPPALADKA P.O KAROPADI - 574 279 BANTWAL TALUK, (DK).

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(By SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.03.2011, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU (VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION) ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO RESERVING OF SY.NOS.205 AND 206 OF KAROPADI VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK (DK) FOR GOMALA PURPOSE ONLY; QUASH THE ORDER DTD 03.06.2020, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPEAL NO.833/2015 (VIDE ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION).

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner, who asserts that he has submitted an application in the prescribed Form for grant of land in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, has filed this petition being aggrieved by certain observations by the Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangaluru [the first respondent] in the proceedings in No. CDS.LND(2)CR.209/2008-09 and by the Karnataka

¶20

¶21

Appellate Tribunal [for short, ‘ the Tribunal’ ] in (Revenue) Appeal No.833/2015.

¶22

The second respondent has filed an

¶23

application under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the KLR Act') before the second respondent for initiation of action to protect the lands in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal taluk (Dakshina Kannada) as also the lands in Sy.No.229 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District from purported encroachments. The first respondent has disposed of this application, which is registered as proceedings in No. CDS.LND(2)CR.209/2008-09, by the order dated 01.03.2011 recording that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner is guilty of cutting down the trees in the lands in Sy.Nos.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.

¶24

¶25

However, the first respondent has also

¶26

directed the Tahsildar to take such action as would be necessary to protect these two lands and the land in Sy.No.229 from encroachment observing that these lands are gomal lands. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this observation that the lands in Sy.Nos.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District are gomal lands, has filed appeal before the Tribunal in (Revenue) Appeal No.833/2015. The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal observing that the Committee constituted under section 94A of the KLR Act is an independent authority and will have to pass orders in accordance with law.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application for grant of rights to certain portions in the lands in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal taluk (Dakshina Kannada) is pending before the appropriate Committee.

¶28

¶29

In the year 2001, a public interest litigation in W.P. No.41353/2001 is commenced by some persons asserting that they are residents of Karopadi Village and for directions to protect the lands in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District from encroachment. This writ petition is disposed of by the Division Bench with the observation that no directions could be issued as regards the alleged encroachment of the material parts inter alia on the ground that the alleged encroachers are not parties and the respondents would have to take action against them. The second respondent, taking cue from this observation, has filed the application before the first respondent which is registered in proceedings in No. CDS. LND(2)CR. 209/2008-09.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the observation by the Tribunal would not address the petitioner's grievance insofar as the

¶31

¶32

unjustified observation by the first respondent that the lands in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District are gomal lands. The petitioner is entitled to khumki privileges in these lands as he owns the adjacent varga lands and also for regularization.

¶33

6. The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶34

and Sri Ravi Shankar Shastry, learned counsel who appears for the second respondent, submits that even if the petitioner's case that he enjoys khumki privileges in the lands in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal taluk (Dakshina Kannada) is accepted, the application under section 94A of the KLR Act, 1964 would not apply. In fact, the learned counsel, Sri Ravi Shankar, submits that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner's application in Form No.50 for regularization of occupation of the lands in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 is pending consideration.

¶35

¶36

Significantly, the finding by the first

¶37

respondent that the land in Sy.No.205/2 and 206 of Karopadi Village, Bantwal taluk (Dakshina Kannada) are gomal lands is not a finding recorded by the first respondent with due opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against such finding, and such opportunity would be just and reasonable if the petitioner’s application is pending consideration. The competent Committee constituted under the provisions of section 94A of the KLR Act, if the application is filed by the petitioner, will have to examine the question whether the petitioner would be entitled for grant of these lands in Sy.Nos.205/2 and 206. Therefore, the petition is disposed of observing that the Committee, if seized of the petitioner's application for grant of lands in Sy.Nos.205/2 and 206, shall consider such application independent of any observation by the first respondent in Appeal No. CDS.LND(2)CR.209/2008-09 or by the

¶38

¶39

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in (Revenue)Appeal

¶40

No.833/2015.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

Walter Monthero v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Walter Monthero v. the Deputy 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 H D Vijay Kumar Vs M/S Shri Ram Properties (P) Limited

Sri H D Vijay Kumar Vs M/S Shriram Properties Limited

Sri. H.D Vijayakumar Vs M/S Shriram Properties Limited

Krishnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Ramachandra Vs the Thasildhar

Zahirabi Vs the Deputy Commissioner