Dismissed

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2021WP/27416/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the fixation of upset price on assigned land, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was available and binding on the petitioner. Liberty was reserved for the appeal remedy. Time for appeal would be enlarged.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 27.02.2018 quashed; petitioner restored to appellate remedy under Section 49; time enlarged for appeal.

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.27416 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SURAKSHA KANTHARAJ S/O LATE KANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.104, "MAITRI TOWER", "B" 4^TH CROSS, VENKATADRI LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR 7^TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R S RAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 001.

¶14

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, TARIKERE,

¶15

CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 001.

¶16

¶17

4. THE TAHASILDAR NARASIMMARAJAPURA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST - 577 001.

¶18

(BY SRI. A R SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has called in question an order

¶25

passed by respondent No.2 dated 27.02.2018 in case No.M3 L.C.R.C.R:2/2014-15.

¶26

The petitioner claims that his grandfather was

¶27

granted the land measuring 26.22 acres in survey No.117, 118, 120, 121, 122 and 123 of Badaga Jayaluru Village, Narasimharajapura taluk, Chikkamagalur District on 12.01.1961 at an upset price. It is stated that the petitioner demanded the respondent No.2 to issue a Saguvali slip pursuant to which, the respondent No.2 issued a temporary Saguvali slip dated 08.01.2014.

¶28

¶29

Thereafter, respondent No.2 fixed the upset price of a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- per acre. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid fixation of upset price, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.253/2015. The Tribunal by its order dated 08.07.2016 allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of this Court in Muniyellappa v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1995 Karnataka Page 255. After such remand, the Deputy Commissioner, by the impugned order, reiterated the upset price at Rs.1,40,000/- based on a circular issued by the State Government dated 16.01.1998. The petitioner has therefore challenged the said order.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶31

that since grant in question was in the year 1961, the upset price applicable at that time must have been taken into consideration and not as per the rates provided in

¶32

¶33

the year 1988 or thereof. He therefore sought for quashing of the order passed by respondent No.2.

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that an appeal is provided under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be relegated back to the appellate authority. He also submits that since the petitioner has accepted the temporary grant dated 08.01.2014, the upset price was fixed as per the extant circular issued on 16.01.1998. He therefore, submits that even on merits the petitioner is not entitled for the relief at the hands of this Court.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for parties, once

¶36

a statute provides the remedy of an appeal against the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner is bound to avail the said remedy. The petitioner cannot rush to this Court on any ground moreso, contending that respondent No.2 failed to adhere to the judgment of this Court passed in

¶37

¶38

Muniyellappa's case (supra). In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy of an appeal provided under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. If an appeal is filed, the time consumed in pursuing this writ petition shall be enlarged while calculating limitation.

¶39

All contentions are left open.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

nms

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Suraksha Kantharaj 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shantilal @ S P Jain Vs Smt Sunandamma

Philomina Pais Vs Deputy Commissioner

Precilla Pais Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Hinduja Estate Developers Vs Smt. Chinamma

M/S Arudrama Developments Private Limited Vs M Manjula

Hanumanthappa Vs Rathnamma