Dismissed

K v. Paramesha v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2021WP/18021/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order reserving village land for public purposes under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as he failed to appeal the underlying rejection of his application for regrant under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition was dismissed; no orders made to conduct enquiry or reserve the land.

K v Paramesha Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.18021/2012 (KLR-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

K.V. PARAMESHA, S/O K.P. CHIKKAIAH @ SANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, KOPPA VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPT. OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶11

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶12

¶13

THE TAHASILDAR, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.06.2004 IN NO.LLD.CR:25:04-05 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN RESPECT OF LAND MEASURING 04 ACRES 11 GUNTAS IN SY. NO.30 OF KADAGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT AND ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner has challenged the Order dated 18.06.2004 passed by the respondent No.2 utilizing the land measuring 04 Acres 11 guntas in Sy. No.30 situated at Kadagere village, kasaba hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, for public purpose.

¶20

The petitioner claims that he is an authorized

¶21

holder of the village office of "Kuluvadi" and that the land bearing Sy. No.30 of Kadagere village was attached to the

¶22

¶23

said office as an emolument. He claimed that after the abolition of the village offices in the State of Karnataka, he filed an application seeking regrant of the said land under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). The respondent No.3 rejected the application of the petitioner and issued an endorsement dated 22.03.2000 stating that the Revenue Inspector visited Kadagere village on 06.01.2000 and after enquiry, found that the petitioner was not cultivating the land in Sy. No.30 and no one was in possession of the said land. It was also stated that the petitioner did not furnish any documents to show that he was the authorized holder of "Kuluvadi". Hence, in view of an Order passed by the respondent No.2 to take over possession of the land in question to the Government, respondent No.3 resumed the land to the Government. Later, the respondent No.2 purportedly in exercise of power under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act of 1964’) reserved the land for public purposes.

¶24

¶25

The petitioner has challenged the said order of reservation of the land in question on the ground that it is the Deputy Commissioner who has to exercise power under Section 71 of the Act of 1964 and not the respondent No.2. He also claimed that the respondent No.3 ought to have conducted an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961 before rejecting the application of the petitioner for regrant of the land in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961 for regrant of the land in question.

¶26

The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the petitioner has not challenged the Order of rejection of his application for regrant in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Act of 1961, he does not have any locus standi to challenge the Order passed by the respondent No.2 reserving the land in question for public purposes.

¶27

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The endorsement dated 22.03.2000 issued by the respondent No.3 clearly discloses that the application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.3. The said endorsement was based upon the report of the Revenue Inspector, who reported that the petitioner was not cultivating the land in question and that there was nobody in occupation of the land in question. This order/endorsement was appealable under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1961. However, the petitioner has not chosen to assail the correctness of the said endorsement in the manner known to law. If that be so, he does not have any subsisting locus standi to challenge the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 reserving the land in question for public purpose. Even otherwise, by virtue of Section 195 of the Act of 1964, the powers under Section 71 of the said Act was delegated to respondent No.3.

¶30

¶31

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this

¶32

Writ Petition and the same is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

sma

K v. Paramesha v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K v. Paramesha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. K. N. Chandrika Vs the Deputy Commissioner

K M Malleshgowda Vs state of karnataka

Siddesh Y S Vs State of Karnataka

Juber Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Panduboyi Vs Smt Thayamma

Mallesha Vs sushama