Dismissed

Smt.Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021WP/16977/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. The Court granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority and restrained respondents from initiating criminal proceedings or dispossessing the petitioner during appeal pendency.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to challenge before Appellate Authority; no criminal proceedings or dispossession permitted during appeal pendency; limitation time to be set off.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

W.P. NO.16977 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HAROHALLI VILLAGE, MASTHI HOBALI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563130.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAGONDAPPA S. ZULAPI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.

¶15

¶16

4. THE TAHSILDAR TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK, MALUR-563130.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, A.G.A.)

¶19

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-D.

¶20

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the respondent No.3 in exercise of the power vested under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

¶23

It is seen that the respondent No.3 had entertained suo motu proceedings against the Order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Committee for regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of Sy.No.89 of Rampura Village, Malur Taluk and set aside the said order on the ground that the respondent No.4 had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements before entertaining an application under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

¶24

¶25

In similar circumstances, this Court in W.P. No.15715/2021 had relegated the party before the Appellate Authority.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by respondent No.3 before the Appellate Authority.

¶27

If an appeal is filed, the time consumed in prosecuting this appeal shall be set off while calculating limitation. Until disposal of such an appeal, the respondent shall not initiate any criminal proceedings against the petitioner and shall not dispossess the petitioner from the property in question.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

hnm

Smt.Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Jayamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

H L Narayana Shetty Vs the Union of India

Lochanesh B Hugar Vs the Head

P U Balachandra Das Vs Smt Bhagyalakshmamma

Dodda Obamma Vs Obamma K

M/S Ondot Corporate Services Ltd. Vs Mr N Venugopal Reddy

Sri Krishnappa a S Vs State of Karnataka