Allowed

K H Thimmaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Oct 2021WP/44700/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka issued a writ of mandamus directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's 1992 application for regularization of unauthorized land cultivation within six months, disregarding the respondent's plea regarding distance from city limits.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus was issued directing Respondents 2 and 3 to consider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate order within six months.

K H Thimmaraju Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.44700 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K.H.THIMMARAJU, S/O LATE CHIKKA HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT KEMPATHIMMANAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.R.SHAMA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562110.

¶14

THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNATHORISED OCCUPATION, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 16.04.2O18)

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1, R2 AND R3)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 CF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO.50 DATED 05.06.1992 AND THE VERY SAME APPLICATION FILED ON 27.05.2006, MARKED AS ANNEXUREA, THE SAME IS MARKED AS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking for the writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application filed by the petitioner in Form No.50 for regularization of the unauthorized cultivation of land bearing Sy.No.66 of Kempathimannahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the application is filed in the year 1992, the respondent No.3 has not considered the same.

¶23

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the application filed by the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.66 of Kempathimannahalli Village, which lies

¶24

¶25

within 18 kms from the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and therefore, the application is not maintainable.

¶26

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had filed an application in the year 1992, respondent No.3 was bound to consider the same in accordance with law and as per the law which existed as on that day. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the said application and pass appropriate order within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and intimate the petitioner.

¶27

It is needless to mention that if the application is already disposed of, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 may not give effect to this order.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

GJM

K H Thimmaraju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K H Thimmaraju 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

Dodda Obamma Vs Obamma K

Smt.Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Ondot Corporate Services Ltd. Vs Mr N Venugopal Reddy

D R Rangappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr. Anand Kumar Kshatriya Vs Mr. Syed Sajid

Sri. Yellappa Vs Smt. Gowramma