Allowed

Sri Krishnappa a S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2021WP/5526/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry into the petitioner's claim to public land (Sarkari Thopu) before extinguishing rights and allotting portions to other respondents.

What did the court decide?

The notification allotting land was held liable to be quashed until objections are filed and an enquiry under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is conducted by the Deputy Commissio

Sri Krishnappa a S Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5526 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. KRISHNAPPA A.S, S/O LATE SONNAPPA, AGED 56 YEARS, NO.171/2, CONSERVANCY LANE, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE-560018 ... PETITIONER

¶9

[BY SRI.K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE-562106

¶15

¶16

ATTIBELE TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ATTIBELE, BANGALORE-562107, BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

¶17

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶18

SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, CHANNAPATNA DIVISION, CHANNAPATNA-562160.

¶19

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶20

PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, BENGALURU TELECOM DISTRICT, NEXT TO GPO, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS

¶21

[BY SRI.A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA FOR R1-4, SRI.KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R5, SRI.A.RAJESH, CGC FOR R6 AND R7 (PH), SRI.SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE FOR R8]

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.10.2009 AT ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE R-4 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this writ petition the petitioner has called in question

¶25

a publication dated 03.10.2009 in Form No.27 issued by the respondent No.4 herein, proposing to allot certain portion of the land bearing Sy.No.393 to the respondent Nos.5 to 9.

¶26

¶27

The petitioner claims that the land bearing Sy.No.393 of Attibele Village, Anekal Taluk, measuring 3 acres 33 guntas was owned and possessed by Smt.Vasudha Ramabhadran, she having succeeded to it from her ancestors. He claimed that the said Smt. Vasudha Ramabhadran had executed a testament dated 01.12.2016 in favour of the petitioner herein and that she passed away on 30.09.2018. Therefore, he claimed to be the owner of the aforesaid property. He claimed that a portion of the aforesaid land was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India, in respect of which proceedings under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was initiated. The predecessor of Smt. Vasudha Ramabhadran was one of the claimants along with another Smt. Andal Rama Murthy and that the Court in LAC No.7/1995 had declared that Smt. Vasudha Ramabhadran and Smt. Andal Rama Murthy were entitled to the compensation in respect of the acquisition of the land in Sy.No.393 of Attibele Village. It is submitted that notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, respondent No.4 herein termed the entire land in

¶28

¶29

Sy.No.393 as a "Sarkari Thopu" and had released certain portions of the aforesaid lands to respondent Nos.5 to 9 herein. The petitioner therefore contends that the said publication giving away portion of the land to respondent Nos.5 to 9 was without notice to the petitioners.

¶30

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the land in question was already vested in the State, since it was a classified as "Sarkari Thopu" in the land records and therefore, the petitioner had no right to challenge the distribution of the land for public purposes.

¶31

Section 68 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') permits a Revenue Officer to pass an order to extinguish rights of public and individuals in or over any public road, street, lane or path that is not required for use of public.

¶32

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had laid a claim to the land in Sy.No.393, it was incumbent upon respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry under Section

¶33

¶34

67(2) of the Act and pass appropriate orders deciding the claim of the petitioner. The action of the respondent No.3 would then sync with the constitutional protection under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Without doing so, respondent No.4 could not have extinguished the rights of the petitioner by issuing the impugned publication.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in part. The petitioner is permitted to file his objections to the notification issued by respondent No.4/Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk dated 03.10.2009. The respondent No.4/Tahsildar shall place the same before respondent No.3/The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, who shall conduct an enquiry into the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.

¶36

The respondent No.3 shall also issue appropriate notice to Smt. Andal Rama Murthy wife of Rama Murthy residing at No.10, 7th Cross, 7th Main, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru - 560003 and hear her out before passing any orders.

¶37

¶38

It is needless to mention that respondent No.3 is entitled to call for any records relating to the land in Sy.No.393 of Attibele Village, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶39

All contentions are left open.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

GJM

Sri Krishnappa a S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnappa a S v. 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

H L Narayana Shetty Vs the Union of India

Lochanesh B Hugar Vs the Head

P U Balachandra Das Vs Smt Bhagyalakshmamma

Dodda Obamma Vs Obamma K

Smt.Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

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