Allowed

Sri Kattanaika v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2021WP/3327/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigation filed seeking mandamus to direct Assistant Commissioner and Thasildar to clear encroachment over a road portion in agricultural land. Court affirmed previous order directing removal and fixed new deadline.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 directed to remove encroachment in 20 guntas in Survey No.23 within four weeks and report compliance to Court registry.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3327 OF 2021(KLR-RES-PIL)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1. SRI KATTANAIKA

¶10

ZILLA PANCHAYATH MEMBER MYSURU ZILLAH PANCHAYATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE KATTANAIKA

¶11

2. SRI SWAMYNAIKA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE KATTANAIKA

¶13

3. PUTTANAIKA

¶14

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE SANNANAIKA

¶15

SRI RAVINAIKA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE ERANAIKA

¶16

SRI RAJENDRA NAIKA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE VEERANAIKA

¶17

¶18

ALL ARE R/O KONANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAHEJJURU POST HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571106

¶19

...PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI.B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶23

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-560001

¶24

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB DIVISION, HUNSUR MYSURU-571105

¶25

THE THASILDAR HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571105

¶26

SRI RAJU AGE MAJOR S/O CHAMUNDIGOWDA R/AT KONANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAHEJJURU POST HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571106

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶29

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.4 - THASILDAR, TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION TO CLEAR THE ROAD PORTION TO MAKE CONVENIENT TO PUBLICS AND IF NECESSARY, TO TAKE ACTION UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 192(A) AS PER THE LETTER DATED 14/11/2017, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4, THASILDAR. THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 14/11/2017, SUBMITTED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ii)PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THESE WRIT PETITIONS.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The captioned writ petition is filed in the nature of public

¶34

interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.4-Tahsildar to take appropriate action and clear the

¶35

¶36

encroachment over the road portion which is part and parcel of Sy.No.23 of Konanahosahalli Village, Hunsur Taluk.

¶37

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶38

The subject matter of the present writ petition is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.23 totally measuring 4 acres situated at Konanahosahalli Village, Hunsur Taluk. Respondent No.5 submitted an application seeking grant of land in Survey No.23. Respondent No.4 has issued a grant certificate vide order dated 10.1.1994 to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas. Pursuant to grant, respondent No.5 filed an undertaking memo that he would not violate the terms and conditions of Saguvali chit.

¶39

The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that respondent No.5 having acquired right only to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.23 pursuant to the saguvali chit issued by respondent No.4 has however illegally encroached over remaining 20 guntas which is a road portion.

¶40

¶41

Therefore, the present petitioners who are villagers and are entitled to have access to the river are before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondentsauthorities to clear the encroachment.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶43

learned AGA for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶44

This Court vide order dated 22.2.2021 directed respondent No.4 to visit the disputed site and carry out spot inspection to ascertain as to whether any encroachment is made on the road which is the subject matter of the writ petition. Pursuant to the order of this Court, respondent No.4 visited the spot and has submitted a status report on 31.3.2021. At para 4 of the status report, respondent No.4 has stated in unequivocal terms that respondent No.5 has encroached over 20 guntas of land which is used as road to have access to Lakshmanathirta river. The relevant portion of

¶45

¶46

spot inspection report produced as Annexure-R1 would be

¶47

useful to resolve the lis and the same is culled out as follows:

¶48

ಸಳ� ತ��ೆ ವರ�

¶49

UË: ಉಚ� �ಾ��ಾಲಯದ�� ಾಖ�ಾ�ರುವ ಪ�ಕರಣ ಸಂ�ೆ� W.P.No.3327/2023 (KLR RES PIL) PÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ �ಾ!ಾ ರ"ೆ# ಜ%ೕನು ಒತು#ವ)�ಾ�ರುವ ಬ+ೆ, ಎದು. ಸ�ಳ ತ��ೆ ನ/ೆ0 ವರ� ಸ��ಸಲು ಸೂ20ದ.ರ 3ೕ�ೆ ��ಾಂಕ: 15-03-2021 ರಂದು 3ೖಸೂರು 5�ೆ�, ಹುಣಸೂರು 7ಾಲೂ�ಕು, ಹನ+ೋಡು 9ೋಬ:, ;ೋಣನ9ೊಸಹ:< +ಾ�ಮದ "ೈನಂ 23 ರ >ೆ?ನೂ� ನ@ೆಯ�� ರ"ೆ# ಉ�ೆ.ೕಶ;ಾB� ಗುರುDಸ�ಾ�ದ. 0-20 ಗುಂEೆ �ಾ!ಾ ಜ%ೕನನುF ಖುದು. ಸ�ಳ ತ��ೆ ನ/ೆ0ದು., ಸ�ಳ ತ��ೆ ಸಂದಭHದ�� 9ಾI ಕಂಡುಬಂ�ರುವಂ7ೆ ಸದ) ಪ�ಕರಣದ 5�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರ>ಾದ J�ೕ >ಾಜು KL MಾಮುಂN+ೌಡ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಸನಂ 23 ರ�� "ಾಗುವ: ಮಂಜೂ>ಾD ಪ/ೆ�ರುವ 1-20 ಏಕ>ೆ ಜ%ೕ�ನ Qೊ7ೆ+ೆ ಸದ) ಜ%ೕ�+ೆ 9ೊಂ�;ೊಂಡಂ7ೆRೕ ಇರುವ ರ"ೆ# ಉ�ೆ.ೕಶ;ೆB >ೆ?ನೂ� ನ@ೆಯ�� ಗುರುD0ದ. 0-20 ಗುಂEೆ ಜ%ೕನನುF ಸದ ಒತು#ವ) TಾN;ೊಂNರುವUದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತ#�ೆ ರ"ೆ# ಉ�ೆ.ೕಶ;ಾB� ರ?ನೂ� ನ@ೆಯ�� ಗುರುDಸ�ಾ�ದ. ಸದ) ರ"ೆ# Qಾಗದ�� Vೆ�ೆ VಾಳWವ 1 7ೇಗದ ಮರಗಳW, 1 ಹಲ0ನ ಮರ, 6 7ೆಂ�ನ �ಡಗಳW, 5 Cಕು�HಲX ಮರಗಳW, 103 0ಲYZ ಮರಗಳW, ;ೆಲವU ;ಾ[ಗಳW ಮತು# 4*5 ಅNಗಳW %ೕಣHದ ಒಂದು ]ೌMಾಲಯ ಕಟ_ಡ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶50

ಪ�"ಾ#aತ ;ೋಣನ9ೊಸಹ:< +ಾ�ಮದ ಸನಂ, 23 ರ��, 3-20 ಎಕ>ೆ ಜ%ೕನನುF ಬಗZ ಹುಕುಂ "ಾಗುವ: ಸಕ�%ೕಕರಣ bೕಜ�ೆಯN ��ಾಂಕ: 10/01/1991 ರಂದು 5�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರ>ಾದ J�ೕ. >ಾಜು KL MಾಮುಂN+ೌಡ ರವರ 9ೆಸ)+ೆ "ಾಗುವ: ಮಂಜೂ>ಾD �ೕಡ�ಾ�ರುತ#�ೆ . 9ಾಗೂ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤UÉ 9ೊಂ�;ೊಂಡಂ7ೆRೕ ಇರುವ ಸುTಾರು 33 ಅNಗಳW ಅಗಲ (0-20 ಗುಂEೆ

¶51

¶52

?0#ೕಣH) ಇರುವ ಜ%ೕನನುF "ಾವHಜ�ಕ ರ"ೆ# ಉ�ೆ.ೕಶ;ಾB� ;ಾc.)ಸಲು >ೆ?ನೂ� ನ@ೆಯ�� ಗುರುDಸ�ಾ�ರುತ#�ೆ , ಆದ>ೆ ರ"ೆ# ಉ�ೆ.ೕಶ;ಾB� >ೆ?ನೂ� ನ@ೆಯ�� ಗುರುDಸ�ಾ�ದ. ಸದ) 0-20 ಗುಂEೆ �ಾ!ಾ ಜ%ೕನನುF 5�ೇ ಎದುರು�ಾರರು ಅನeಕೃತ!ಾ� ಒತು#ವ) TಾN;ೊಂಡು 9ಾ� ಬಳಸುD#ರುವUದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ�ರುತ#�ೆ .

¶53

This Court having examined the status report has held that it is a clear case of encroachment of government land. The relevant order dated 7.9.2021 reads as follows:

¶54

" A report has been filed in the matter and the report clearly reveals that there is certain encroachment over the land which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.

¶55

In the light of the report, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to remove the encroachment and report compliance to this Court within 10 days'.

¶56

List on 25.09.2021 for reporting compliance.

¶57

If the status report is examined coupled with the

¶58

observations made by this Court by order dated 7.9.2021, we

¶59

¶60

are of the view that nothing survives for consideration and a

¶61

mandamus issues in the present case on hand and the respondents 3 and 4 are duty bound to implement the order dated 7.9.2021 wherein this Court has categorically directed respondents 3 and 4 to remove encroachment and report compliance to this Court within ten days. It is also forthcoming from the records that respondents 3 and 4 are seeking extension of time to implement the order.

¶62

We have given our anxious consideration to the

¶63

entire material on record. Respondent No.5 applied for regularisation of land bearing Sy.No.23. The authorities after due enquiry held that respondent No.5 is eligible for regularisation of land to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.23 which totally measures 4 acres. The petitioners have placed on record the saguvali chit and an undertaking memo executed by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-B and B1. The said two documents would clearly clinch the issue. The authorities while granting 3 acres 20 guntas have clearly

¶64

¶65

stated that respondent No.5/grantee shall not obstruct the adjacent land owners and villagers from using the road which is situated in remaining 20 guntas. It is unfortunate that respondent No.5 who is the beneficiary of 3 acres 20 guntas has made a false claim even in respect of remaining 20 guntas which is reserved for road. The respondent No.4 after spot inspection has placed on record the status report and has clearly indicated the encroachment. This Court having taken judicial note of the status report has already directed respondents 3 and 4 to remove the encroachments by order dated 7.9.2021.

¶66

For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶69

(ii) Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to remove the

¶70

encroachment in 20 guntas in Survey No.23 within a period of four weeks.

¶71

¶72

(iii)Respondents 3 and 4 shall report compliance to the

¶73

registry of this Court.

¶74

All I.As stand disposed of.

¶75

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶76

Sd/JUDGE

¶77

*alb/-.

Sri Kattanaika v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kattanaika 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

Sri Neelappa O Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Robo Silicon Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

S K Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka

M P Nrupatunga Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sujatha Vs Canara Bank