Allowed

Smt.Puttamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2021WP/21770/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petition but directed the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner to consider the petitioners' application for land regularization within six months, accepting the counsel's submission to grant reasonable time.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 to consider the petitioners' application for land regularization within six months from the date of the order.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.21770 OF 2021 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O LATE SHRI BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶9

SHRI B. MANJUNATH S/O LATE SHRI BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE R/O VANAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND PO KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560095

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR KESVY AND CO.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, V FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION

¶17

¶18

KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 560095 …RESPONDENTS

¶20

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

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND REGULARIZE THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION BY THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners in Form No.53 for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation in the land bearing Sy. No.24 of Kalanayakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk.

¶25

The petitioners contend that the father of the petitioner No.2 was cultivating the aforesaid land unauthorizedly and after introduction of Section 94(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, an application in

¶26

¶27

Form No.53 was filed on 10.11.1998 before the respondent No.4 for regularization of their unauthorized cultivation. It is claimed that certain proceedings were initiated by the respondent No.4, which culminated in a report by the Revenue Inspector who indicated that the father of the petitioner No.2 and subsequently, the petitioners were cultivating the land in question. The said report was placed before the Committee constituted for the purpose of regularization of the unauthorized cultivation and since there was certain mistakes in the report, the respondent No.4 was again directed to obtain a fresh report. Later, the Revenue Inspector found that the father of the petitioner No.2 was in occupation of 1 acre 12 guntas and not in 2 acres and thus, re-submitted that report to the Committee.

¶28

He submitted that the respondent No.4 after scrutinizing the relevant records, has submitted a list of grantees to the respondent No.2 on 08.10.2012 to review the applications. It is claimed that though the application

¶29

¶30

is pending for more than 30 years, the same is not considered by the respondent No.4.

¶31

The learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that if reasonable time is granted, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶32

In view of the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, this writ petition is disposed off and the respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to consider the application of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

NBM

Smt.Puttamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Puttamma v. the 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 Kalamma Vs Smt Premamma @ Premakka

Mr. Prashanth Vs Mrs. Prathiba Pillai

Sri. N. Ramesh Vs Sri. G. G. Raveesha

Smt Haseena Begum Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Shri Ramanjanappa Vs Shri Hanumappa

B. Narayanappa Vs the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary