Disposed

Smt. Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2021WP/31340/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in writ petition allowed petitioner to submit detailed representation to Tahsildar. Court directed Tahsildar to consider representation within 12 weeks considering Appellate Tribunal order and 2020 amendment that omitted relevant sections.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit detailed representation to Tahsildar; Tahsildar to consider same within 12 weeks.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.31340/2019 (LR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.46, 2^ND MAIN, HOSAGURAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. BHOJARAJA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISRICT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶15

(By SRI. A.R. SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION/REPRESENTATION ANNEXURE-F 31.10.17 AND ENTER THE NAMES OF THE PURCHASERS PRESENTLY THEIR LEGAL HEIRS IN REVENUE RECORDS AND RTC, IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF KAT VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 09.06.17 IN APPEAL 172/08 AND SALE DEED DATED 24.03.1982 ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Sri. A.R. Srinivas, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents, and is heard for final disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

This petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 31.10.2017 [Annexure-F]. The Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru [the respondent No.3] by order dated 15.02.1996 in Proceedings No. LRF [83] 359/90-91

¶23

¶24

has directed forfeiture of the land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy. No.119 of Hongasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk - the subject property under the provisions of Sections 79A and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The petitioner has impugned this order in a properly constituted appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short 'Appellate Tribunal'] in Appeal No.172/2008. The Appellate Tribunal, condoning the delay in filing the appeal, has allowed the petitioner's appeal and set aside the respondent No.3's order dated 15.02.1996 in Proceedings No.LRF[83] 359/90-91 with a direction to the respondents to restore the revenue entries for the subject property in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

It is after this disposal by the appellate Tribunal, that the petitioner has submitted her representation as per Annexure-F. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Appellate Tribunal's order

¶26

¶27

has been impugned in the manner known to law. In any event with the provisions of Sections 79A, 79B and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 being omitted with the Karnataka Land Reforms [Amendment] Act, 2020, the Tahsildar, the respondent No.4 will have to consider the petitioner's request for change in mutation entry in the light of the Appellate Tribunal’s order as also the subsequent change in law. Therefore the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a detailed

¶30

representation with the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk [the respondent No.4] for effective consideration of her representation as per Annexure-F. If such representation is submitted, the respondent No.4 shall consider the same in the light of the

¶31

¶32

observations made hereinabove within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶33

SD/JUDGE

¶34

AN/-

Smt. Shanthamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. 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

Domappa Vs the Assistnat Commissioner

Sri Nagaraju P Vs the Karnataka Government

Smt. Kamala C Vs the State of Karnataka

K L Srihari Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S R. K. Infra (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary

M/S Sharada Vidyaniketan Vs Thubarahalli Founhdation Trust