Partly allowed

Sri. Kempanna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2021WP/25289/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed a communication preventing the re-grant of Chakra Inam land due to alleged unauthorized developments without prior notice to the petitioner. The court permitted the petitioner to file a representation for verification of his father's application for rights under the KVOA Act.

What did the court decide?

The Communication dated 11.01.1999 is quashed; the petitioner is directed to file a representation with the Tahasildar within four weeks to verify the status of his father's application for re-grant.

Sri. Kempanna Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 25289/2018 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI. BORAIAH, R/O. NO.228, ALLANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 106.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S M BABU., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 )

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNIVATION OF THE R-2 TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ANNEXURE-F DATED 11.01.1999 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LANDS BEARING S.NO. 13 MEASURING 9.22 GUNTAS OF ALLANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK AND DIST. (CHAKRA INAM LAND)

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has impugned the Communication dated 11.01.1999 in No. HOA.PR.36:98-99 (Annexure F, which is also referred to as an Order) by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-division, Mysore-the second respondent, who has informed the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore-the first respondent-that because of certain unauthorized developments in the Land in Sy No.13, measuring 9.22 guntas of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District – a Chakra Inam land ( subject land )

¶21

¶22

and a possible sale, there cannot be a re-grant of these lands.

¶23

The petitioner’s case is that his ancestors

¶24

were in possession and cultivation of the subject land discharging their corresponding duties, and with the promulgation of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1961 ( for short 'the KVOA Act') , the petitioner’s father, Sri Boraiah, filed application under Section 6 of the KVOA Act thereof for grant of rights to the subject land. The adjacent lands in survey Nos.7 and 15 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District are also Chakra Inam lands, and the applications filed by the occupants of these lands for grant of rights were rejected on the ground that the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had issued notification under Section 17(1) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987. The

¶25

¶26

aforesaid applicants impugned such rejection before this Court in WP No. 30590-98/1999. This Court, by order dated 14.10.1999, allowed the writ petition quashing the endorsement issued rejecting the applications and directed the concerned to reconsider the applications. Subsequently, the Tahasildar - the third respondent - by order dated 08.07.2002 (Annexure – D) has re-granted the respective portions in the aforesaid two survey numbers of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District to such applicants.

¶27

The petitioner’s further case is that, in the meanwhile, the petitioner’s father, Sri. Boraiah, whose application was not considered, had also filed writ petition in WP No. 44101-02/1999 (KLR) along with another, Sri Mahalingaiah, challenging the revenue entries in the RTC for the subject land in favour of the

¶28

¶29

State. This Court by order dated 29.08.2000 disposed of this writ petition directing the second respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner’s father and issue a certified copy of the Communication dated 11.01.1999 (Annexure – F, which is impugned in this petition). The petitioner later filed the writ petition in W.P. No. 7572/2011 (KLR - LG) for direction to the respondents to consider the application filed by his father for re-grant of the subject lands in the light of the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 30590-98/1999. The petitioner had enclosed the Communication dated 11.01.1999, but had not impugned the same. This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the order dated 11.01.1999. As such, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 11.01.1999 and for a direction to the respondents to consider re-grant of the subject land to

¶30

¶31

the petitioner pursuant to the application filed by his father, Sri Boraiah.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is indisputable, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the petitioner’s forefathers were in cultivation of the subject land, and as of the date of the vesting under the provisions of the KVOA Act, subject to the right to re-grant, the petitioner’s father Sri Boraiah was in possession. He submitted an application for re-grant of the subject land. This application was pending consideration, and no decision was taken on this application because the rejection of similar applications by the occupants of the land in Sy.Nos.7 and 15 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District was pending consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 3059098/1999. After the disposal of this writ petition, the

¶33

¶34

similarly placed persons i.e. , the occupants of the adjacent lands in Sy. Nos. 7 and 15 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District are granted the respective portions. The application filed by the petitioner’s father is pending consideration despite the aforesaid circumstances. It is irrefutable that the petitioner’s father, who was in possession of the subject land as of the date of the vesting, continued in possession and thereafter, the petitioner has continued in possession of the subject land. The impugned communication dated 11.01.1999 is issued without notice to the petitioner, and the reasons assigned therein are incorrect.

¶35

5. The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶36

argues against the allowing of the writ petition contending that neither the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 30590-98/1999 nor the subsequent re-grant of

¶37

¶38

different portions of lands in Sy. Nos. 7 and 15 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District would enure to the petitioner’s advantage. The impugned Communication dated 11.01.1999 is a correspondence by the second respondent to the first respondent bringing to the first respondent’s notice that the subject land, a Chakra Inam land, cannot be granted because there are certain developments in the subject land as well as sale. The petitioner, who has slept over the matter, cannot re-agitate the whole issue. Any decision in favour of the petitioner, at this length of time, would be despite further developments/changes in the use of and title to the subject land.

¶39

At the outset, it must be observed that the petitioner is pursuing for re-grant of rights to the subject land under the KVOA Act, and earlier his father, Sri. Boraiah, was pursuing for such re-grant. This is

¶40

¶41

borne out by the initiation of two writ proceedings viz ., WP No. 44101-02/1999 (KLR) and W.P. No. 7572/2011 (KLR). Though there is no serious dispute about whether the petitioner’s father, Sri. Boraiah has filed an application as contemplated under section 6 of the KVOA Act, the Tahasildar, [the third respondent] has to verify the same. Further, if such application is filed, it will have to be considered in accordance with law. The third respondent will have to undertake necessary exercise in this regard so that a final decision is taken on the petitioner’s claims.

¶42

Insofar as the impugned Communication dated 11.01.1999 (Annexure-F), it is seen that it relates to both the subject land and the lands in Sy. Nos.7 and 15 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District. The opinion expressed in this Communication is that neither the subject land nor the

¶43

¶44

adjacent lands in Sy.Nos. No.7 and 15 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District can be re-granted. But, different parcels of land in Sy.Nos. 7 and 15 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District have been granted by the Tahasildhar to the concerned occupants in terms of the order dated 08.07.2002 (which is enclosed as AnnexureD). As such, the impugned Communication dated 11.01.1999 by itself may not be an impediment for grant of the subject land. Significantly, though the petitioner’s right to re-grant of the land in Sy. No. 13 of Allanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and District could be impeded by the observation in the Communication dated 11.01.1999, there is nothing to indicate that the opinion therein is with prior notice or opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the following :

¶45

¶46

ORDER

¶47

a) The petition is allowed in part, and the Communication dated 11.01.1999 in No. HOA.PR.36:98-99 (Annexure F) is quashed.

¶48

b) The petitioner is permitted to file a detailed representation with the Tahasildhar, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru - third respondent to verify whether his father has filed application under Section 6 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 and for a decision on such application as contemplated under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961. The petitioner shall file such

¶49

representation, enclosing a certified copy of

¶50

¶51

this order, within four weeks from the date of receipt of such copy.

¶52

c) The third respondent, within Eight [8] weeks from the date of such

¶53

representation, inform the petitioner about the action taken on such representation.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

Sri. Kempanna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kempanna v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Ravisha Vs the Secretary

Chandra Reddy Vs State

M. Munivenkatashamappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath Vs the Chief Secretary

M Narayana Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP

Smt Subbamma Vs M/S Snn Arjun Builders LLP