Partly allowed

Smt Elizibethamma @ Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2021WP/2190/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 to quash an order by the Deputy Commissioner reserving her husband's land for a park. The Court held the order could not be passed without hearing the petitioner and quashed it, restoring proceedings for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 06.10.2020 quashed; proceedings restored to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh hearing and disposal within 3 months.

Smt Elizibethamma @ Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2190/2021 (KLR RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. ELIZIBETHAMMA @ SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS W/O. LATE RAJAPPA R/AT HALEHALLI VILLAGE BIDRAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560049 ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. C.M.NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶11

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

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH TALUK KHANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560009

¶13

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM BENGALURU - 560056 ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA )

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING DTD 06.10.2020 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DTD 30.08.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 AT ANNX-G AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard for final disposal. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 06.10.2020 in LND(EAST)CR:77/2020-21 (Annexure - A) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, K.G.Road, Bengaluru (the second respondent).

¶20

The second respondent by the impugned order has

¶21

reserved an extent of the land measuring 1 acre 23 guntas in

¶22

¶23

Sy.No.77 of Halehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District ( the subject land) for the purposes of the playground and park in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶24

Sri. C.M. Nagabushana, learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioner relying upon the earlier orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Sub-Division in No.RRT(E)CR-01/15-16 dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure - G), submits that the Special Deputy Commissioner-1, Bengaluru North Sub Division, on the report filed by the Tahsildar and after scrutiny of the records, has concluded that the petitioner’s husband - Sri. Rajappa S/o.Appojappa, an Ex.Service person is granted an extent of the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.46 of Halehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, and the revenue entries for this extent must be restored in the name of the petitioner. Sri. C.M. Nagabushana, learned counsel emphasizes that the

¶26

¶27

second respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, K.G.Road, Bengaluru despite the aforesaid order dated 30.08.2016 has passed the impugned order dated 06.10.2020 only because the land which is allotted to the petitioner’s husband is later phoded as Sy.No.77 of Halehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, and the learned counsel argues that the petitioner should have been heard before the impugned order could be made as the petitioner’s substantive right in the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.46 (New No.77) of Halehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk is abridged by this decision.

¶28

This Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case is of the considered view that the second respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, K.G.Road, Bengaluru - could not have passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner and therefore, the order must be quashed restoring the proceedings in

¶29

¶30

LND(EAST)CR:77/2020-21 (Annexure - A) to the second respondent for re-consideration after hearing the petitioner. Hence, the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

a) The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.10.2020 in LND(EAST)CR:77/2020-21

¶33

(Annexure - A) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, K.G.Road, Bengaluru - the second respondent, is quashed and the proceedings in LND(EAST)CR:77/2020-21 is restored to the Board of the second respondent for re-consideration after due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶34

b) The petitioner, without further notice shall appear before the second respondent - the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, K.G.Road, Bengaluru on 09.08.2021, and shall be entitled to file a detailed representation with all annexures.

¶35

¶36

c) The second respondent shall consider such documents and shall dispose of the proceedings in LND(EAST)CR:77/2020-21 on merits ensuring spot inspection, and in any event within a period of three

¶37

(3) months from 09.08.2021.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

Smt Elizibethamma @ Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Elizibethamma @ Shanthamma 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

Sri Byregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S Rajareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

T S Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramesh P N Vs the State of Karnataka

Nandappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Nagesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner