Disposed

Sri K Ganapathi Bhat v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021WP/51357/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court summoned Tahsildar to verify possibility of allotting alternative sites to petitioners who hold hakku patras for land declared Reserved Forest and disposed of writ petition directing Tahsildar to allot 0.05 cents alternative land within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directing Tahsildar to allot 0.05 cents alternative land to each petitioner within six months upon application with certified copy of this order.

Sri K Ganapathi Bhat Vs Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.51357/2015 (KLR RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI K GANAPATHI BHAT S/O LATE GANAPATHI BHAT K, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, MIG-28, HUDCO COLONY, MANIPAL-576 104, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶8

SRI HARIDAS M S/O LATE RAJU M, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS MEENAKSHI W/O HARIDAS.M "HAMSA" 1^ST CROSS, LEFT NEKKARE KRISHNADAS, MARG, AMBAGILU, UDUPI - 576 102.

¶9

SRI U SUDHAKAR PANDITH S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA PANDITH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OPPOSITE TO LVT, POST:SANTHEKATTE - 576 105, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶10

SRI K SURENDRA KAMATH S/O LATE RAMARAYA KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, MIG-19, HUDCO COLONY,

¶11

¶12

MANIPAL - 576 104, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI K RAJENDRA ACHARYA S/O LATE P VASUDEVA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, "GURUKRIPA" 1/49, PANIYADI, UDUPI - 576 102.

¶14

RAVINDRA NADIG S/O LATE SATHYA NARAYANA RAO NADIG, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, UDAYAVANI MANIPAL - 576 104, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(By SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND :

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, RAJATHADARI MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 104.

¶19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER UDUPI SUB-DIVISION, UDUPI - 576 104.

¶20

TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, UDUPI - 576 104.

¶21

... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(By SRI.A.R. SRINIVAS., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2015 PASSED BY R-2 IN NO. CDIS RRT(2) SR 695/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 07.09.2015 IN NO. CDIS:RAP 32/2015-16 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2004 IN NO.

¶24

¶25

BDS/DMR/32/2003-04 VIDE ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY R-3.

¶26

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

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioners, who assert that they have been

¶29

issued with hakku patras for certain sites in the land in Sy. Nos.7 and 127 of Alevoor Village, Udupi Taluk, have filed this writ petition impugning the following orders:

¶30

[i] the order dated 7.9.2015 in No.CDIS:RAP 32/2015-16 [Annexure-B] by the Deputy Commissioner [the first respondent],

¶31

[ii] the order dated 26.02.2015 in No.CDIS RRT[2]SR695/2012-13 [Annexure-A] by the Assistant Commissioner, Udupi Sub-division [the second respondent] and

¶32

[iii] the order dated 28.08.2004 in No.BDS/DMR/32/2003-04 [Annexure-C] by Tahasildhar, Udupi Taluk [the third respondent].

¶33

¶34

The impugned orders as per Annexures-A and B are because the petitioners initiated proceedings under Section 136[2] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling in question the order dated 28.08.2004 in No.BDS/DMR/32/2003-04 [ Annexure-C]. The petitioners' grievance with this order dated 28.08.2004 is because their request for change in the revenue entries consequent to the hakku patras issued to them is rejected. The respondents contend that notwithstanding the issuance of hakku patras, the petitioners would not be entitled for revenue entries in any portion of the lands in Sy. Nos.7 and 127 of Alevoor Village, Udupi Taluk because the entire land in these survey numbers are notified as Reserved Forest on 23.08.1984 under Section 17 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶35

This Court on 4.6.2021, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶36

¶37

Additional Government Advocate called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to verify whether it would be possible for allotment of alternative sites to the petitioners in accordance with law, and if it is not either possible or permissible to state the reasons thereof. This Court called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to verify from the jurisdictional Tahsildar because the learned counsel for the petitioners, without rebuttal, contended that the petitioners are bonafide grantees and they cannot be relegated without a remedy when no fault can be found with them for the possible error in granting hakku patras.

¶38

Presently, Sri. Pradeep Kurudekar, the

¶39

Tahsildar, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District, has filed his affidavit and in this affidavit he states as follows:

¶40

" I state that, the land bearing Sy. No. 7 & 127 of Alevoor Village is a Government land. As

¶41

¶42

per the Notification dated 23.08.1994, the said land has been declared as Reserve Forest, as per Section 17 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶43

I state that, as per the Orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 04.06.2021 to look for whether any alternative land is a available to be allotted to the present Petitioner and whether it would be possible to issue hakku patras for substituted lands to the petitioners in accordance with law and if it is not either possible or permissible in law to state the reasons therefor.

¶44

I state that, we will grant substituted land each measuring 0.05 cents to Sri Ganapathi Bhat and other 5 petitioners in Udupi Talk in accordance with law.

¶45

I state that to complete the above exercise by following due procedure of law. I most respectfully prays that, this Hon'ble Court be

¶46

¶47

pleased to pass orders in favour of the State of Karnataka.

¶48

In continuation of the contents of this affidavit, Sri.Pradeep Kurudekar, who appears on-line, submits that the allotment of alternative land as aforesaid would be completed within a period of six months. In the light of the contents of the affidavit and the submissions now made, the petition stands disposed of by the following

¶49

ORDER

¶50

[a] The petitioners shall be at liberty to application with the Tahsildar, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District, enclosing a certified copy of this order, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof for grant of alternatives land measuring 0.05 cents to them.

¶51

¶52

[b] The Tahsildar, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District, in line with the statement made as aforesaid, shall ensure that necessary steps are taken and the petitioners are allotted five cents each within a period of six [6] months from the date of receipt of

¶53

such representation.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

AN/-

Sri K Ganapathi Bhat v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K Ganapathi Bhat v. Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs the Dy. Commissioner

Sri Kariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Vedant Projects Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

K C Manmatha Vs the Prl. Secretary