Disposed

Kenchappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2021WP/2037/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ direction to consider his application for forest rights recognition under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The court disposed of the petition within four weeks upon respondent assurance of compliance.

What did the court decide?

Time for compliance set at four weeks; no prejudicial order until decision taken on the application.

Kenchappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2037/2021(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O NAGAPPA, R/O TUDANEERU, BENDEKATTE VILLAGE, SAMANAVALLI POST, KUPPAGADDE HOBLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.CHIDAMBARA G S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,

¶13

M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R AMBEDKAR BEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

¶16

¶17

THE SUB-DIVISIONAL LEVEL COMMITTEE FOR RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS, SORABA TALUK, SORABA - 577 429. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

¶18

THE SAMANAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SAMANAHALLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER.

¶19

THE FOREST RIGHTS COMMITTEE, SAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, SAMANAHALLI, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 429.

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTITION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND PASS ORDERS ON THE APPLICATION, VIDE ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM-A UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT,2006 AND ETC.,

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to nonconsideration of his application, a copy thereof is at Annexure-A , whereby he has sought for recognition of

¶27

¶28

traditional forest rights in terms of Rule 11(1) (a) of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

¶29

Petitioner apprehends that the respondents

¶30

may take judicial action keeping the subject application pending indefinitely.

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Sridhar Hegde on request having accepted notice for the official respondents submits that if a reasonable period is prescribed by this Court for considering subject application in accordance with law, there would be no difficulty in accomplishing the task provided that petitioner also co-operates. This is fair enough.

¶32

In view of the above circumstances, keeping assurance of the respondents given through the learned High Court Government Pleader, this writ petition is disposed off .

¶33

Time for compliance is four weeks.

¶34

¶35

Till the decision is taken on the said application, no

¶36

prejudicial order shall be made against the petitioner.

¶37

All contentions are kept open.

¶38

No costs.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Kenchappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kenchappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayaram Naik S Vs the Principal Secretary

H. Shrinivasa Achar Vs Managing Director

Sri. Ramesh N Vs Smt. Tara A.N

Syed Idris Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Nagarathna B M Vs M/S Canara Bank

M/S Safe Learning Center Vs State of Karnataka