In a writ petition, petitioners challenged orders cancelling their land grants citing fraud and forest land status. The High Court denied relief under Article 226, holding that the existing findings and pending criminal proceedings precluded judicial interference.
Writ petition disposed of with no interference with the impugned orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3704/2021 (KLR RR/SUR)
BETWEEN :
(BY SRI. T.MOHANDAS SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN REV. PETITION NO.34/2016 DATED 24.01.2020 AS PER ANNX-H; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-3 DATED 04.01.2016 AS PER ANNX-G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard and the records are perused. The
petitioners have impugned the following orders:
'a) the order dated 10.08.2015 in Case No.CDS NCR/CR/27/2014-15 [Annexure-F] by the Assistant Commissioner, Kundapura Sub Division, Udupi [the second respondent];
b) the order dated 04.01.2016 in Case No.CDS NCR.SR.19/2015-16 [Annexure-
3
G] by the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, Manipal, Udupi [the third respondent];
c) the order dated 24.01.2020 in Rev.Petition No.34/2016 [Annexure-H] by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore [for short, the Appellate Tribunal].'
4
5
that the subject lands are deemed forest lands and because the subject lands are deemed forest lands, the petitioners could not have been granted these lands. The third respondent has dismissed the petitioners’ appeals by his Order dated 04.01.2016 [Annexure – G].
6
Court to re-examine the records asserting that certain factual circumstances and records are to be re-examined if the authorities’ conclusions on fraud are to prevail. The learned counsel emphasizes that these findings, which are the basis for denial of rights to the granted lands, would also be detrimental to the petitioners as these findings, rendered without due opportunity to them, could affect their defenses in the pending criminal proceedings.
7
the prosecution in the light of the applicable law as regards the burden of proof and it is observed accordingly. The petition stands disposed of thus.
SD/JUDGE
RB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the impugned administrative orders cancelling land grants without re-examining factual circumstances.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI. Y.DINAKAR SHETTY AND ORS.
THE TAHSILDAR KUNDAPURA TALUK AND ORS.
B. M. SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
