Allowed

Sri H S Papanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2021WP/4513/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenged an endorsement by the Tahsildar rejecting a license application for a poultry farm, citing land conversion requirements. The Court noted that poultry farming is explicitly defined as agriculture under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, rendering the endorsement erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 06.11.2020 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tahsildar to consider the representation in accordance with the law.

Sri H S Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.4513/2021 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI H.S.PAPANNA S/O LATE H.SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT HANUMANTHANAHALLI VILLAGE KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANA HALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 228.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI V.ANAND, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU – 572 228.

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI KANDIKERE HOBLI TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 228.

¶13

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HANUMANTHANAHALLI VILLAGE

¶14

¶15

KANDIKERE HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU – 572 228

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BENGALURU ELECTRICAL COMPANY CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU – 572 228.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R., HCGP FOR R1 & R2 SRI NAVEEN J.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD.6.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AT ANNEXURE-D.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 06.11.2020, issued by the second respondent – Tahsildar, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur district.

¶23

Heard Sri V. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the

¶24

petitioner, Sri Nithyananda K.R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for first and second respondent,

¶25

¶26

Sri Naveen J.N., learned counsel for Sri A. Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the material on record.

¶27

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the property measuring 4 acres 20 guntas bearing survey No.504, situated at Hanumanthana Halli, Kandikere Hobli, Chikkanayakana Halli, Chikkanayakana Taluk, Tumkur district, being desirous to set up a poultry farm submitted a representation dated 22.10.2020, to the jurisdictional Tahsildar, seeking license to establish such poultry farm. The application was turned down by an endorsement dated 06.11.2020, on the score that the land prior to commencement of a poultry farm should be converted under the provisions of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said endorsement on the face of it, is erroneous as the definition under Section 2(A)1 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which read as follows:

¶28

¶29

“Section 2(A): In this Act, unless the context

¶30

otherwise requires:

¶31

(1) “agriculture” includes –

¶32

(a) aquaculture;

¶33

(aa) horticulture;

¶34

(b) the raising of crops, grass or garden

¶35

produce;

¶36

(c) dairy farming;

¶37

(d) poultry farming;

¶38

(e) breeding of livestock;

¶39

(f) grazing;

¶40

But does not include the cutting of wood only;)”

¶41

In terms of the afore-extracted provision, the impugned

¶42

endorsement issued by the Tahsildar reflects recklessness and is a product of non-application of mind. Therefore, on this short ground that the impugned endorsement runs counter to the statue, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶45

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 06.11.2020, stands

¶46

quashed.

¶47

¶48

iii. The matter is remitted back to the hands of the second respondent - Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and also bearing in mind the circular issued by Pollution Control Board in respect of commencing of poultry farms and conditions stipulated in the said circular.

¶49

iv. The commencement of the poultry farm shall be in accordance with law and after compliance of all other provisions of law with regard to such commencement.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

nvj CT:MJ

Sri H S Papanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H S Papanna 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

M/S.Exclusive Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nestway Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Bhawar Lifestyle Vs Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

Srinath Maddi Vs the Executive Officer

M/S Acc Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr S Shobha Vs the Commissioner Bbmp