Disposed

Sri Padmappa Poojary v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2021WP/15930/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench disposed of a writ petition filed by residents of Kodimbady Village regarding blocked right of way and improvements on government land. The Court directed the State to decide a pending regularization application within three months, noting that rights remain subject to the Committee's final order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State and Committee to decide regularization application within 3 months; easementary rights subject to Committee's order.

Sri Padmappa Poojary Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.15930 of 2021 (KLR-RES- PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI PADMAPPA POOJARY S/O LATE BABU POOJARY

¶11

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶12

SRI UGGAPPA POOJARY S/O LATE P CHOMA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶13

SRI SHEENAPPA POOJARY S/O LATE BABU POOJARY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶14

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF PARANEERU KODIMBADY VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K. DISTRCT - 574 325. ...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI THARANATH SHETTY.K., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALURU - 575 001.

¶18

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PUTTUR SUB-DIVISION

¶20

PUTTUR, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶21

THE TEHASILDAR, PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.

¶22

SRI VEERAPPA POOJARY S/O LATE KORAGA POJARY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶23

SMT.REVATHI W/O VEERAPAP POOJARY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶24

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DEKKAJE HOUSE KODIMBADY VILLAGE AND POST PUTTUR TALUK D.K.DISTRICT - 574 325. ....RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:(A) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17/06/2019 VIDE NO. NCR. CR-169/18-19 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 AT ANNEXURE - A. (B) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 TO REMOVE THE OBSTRUCTIONS CAUSED TO THE PUBLIC ROAD IN GOVERNMENT LAND IN SY. NO. 74/1 OF KODIMBADY VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D. K. DISTRICT. (C) TO ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioners before this Court who are the residents

¶31

of Kodimbady Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District has filed this present petition stating that their right of way has been blocked by Respondent Nos.4 and 5. It has been further stated that a civil suit was also preferred by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in O.S.No.123 of 1999 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District and the said civil suit was dismissed. An appeal was also filed by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in R.A.No.139 of 2009 before the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Puttur, Dakshina Kannada District and the said appeal was also dismissed. The order passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in the said appeal reveals that the defendants as well as the people who are residing in the locality failed to prove their respective cases pleaded in the plaint as well as in the counter claim and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no benefit can be

¶32

¶33

granted on the basis of the order passed in R.A.No.139 of 2007.

¶34

Another important aspect of the case is that

¶35

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 have preferred a writ petition before this Court i.e., Writ Petition Nos.53260-61 of 2018, being aggrieved by the notice dated 21^st November, 2018 by which, they have called upon to remove the improvements made to the land by planting areca-nut and coconut saplings. The learned Single Judge has disposed of

¶36

the said writ petition by an order dated 05^th December, 2018 by quashing the notice dated 21^st November, 2018 and has directed the Respondents - State therein to decide the application dated 18^th February 1999, which was filed for regularization of land rights. It is an undisputed act that the aforesaid application has not been decided so far.

¶37

The learned Single Judge has also granted a

¶38

stay order in the matter directing the State not to dispossess the petitioners therein meaning thereby, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the present writ petition.

¶39

¶40

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly

¶41

stated before this Court that the matter be disposed of with a direction to the State Government to decide the application dated 18^th February 1999 within a reasonable time.

¶42

The learned Government Advocate has stated before this Court that the application shall certainly be decided within a reasonable time as far as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The application has to be decided by the Regularization Committee and the third respondent before this Court is the Member Secretary of the Committee and therefore, the Committee shall decide the application as expeditiously as possible properly within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the Respondents-State shall be free to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, keeping in view, the order passed by the Committee.

¶43

¶44

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed

¶45

of.

¶46

It is needless to mention that the easementary rights of the petitioners shall certainly be subject to the final outcome of the order passed by the Committee.

¶47

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri Padmappa Poojary v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Padmappa Poojary 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S People for Animals Mysuru Animal Welfare Organisation Vs State of Karnataka

V T Dinesh Kumar Vs the Senior Geologist (M)

B v Mahesh Rai Vs the Sendior Geologist (M)

General Manager Bank of Maharashtra Vs Vijaya Parthasarathy

Heidelberg Cement India Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Gurunath Vadde Vs State of Karnataka