Dismissed

M. Munivenkatashamappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2021WP/59331/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the Land Grant Committee to regularize tenure. The court found the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Rule 108-D(6) and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to avail alternative remedy under Rule 108-D(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

M. Munivenkatashamappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.59331/2015 (KLR REG)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

M.MUNIVENKATASHAMAPPA SON OF MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED) RESIDING AT HAMAM VILLAGE KASAB HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H.P.MUDLAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS LAND GRANT COMMITTEE TALUK OFFICE DODDABALLAPUR 561 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶12

TAHASILDAR DODDABALLAPUR 561 203 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

¶13

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR

¶14

¶15

DODDABALLAPUR TALUK DODDABALLAPUR 561 203

¶16

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. A.R.SRINIVAS, AGA)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD PERTAINING TO FORM.53 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SY.110 LAND MEASURING ABOUT 2 ACRES, SITUATED IN SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT FORTHWITH.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the decision of the Land Grant Committee, Doddaballapur under Rule 108-D(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

¶22

There is no reason for interference with the impugned resolution of the regularization committee when the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy as aforesaid.

¶23

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of observing that the petitioner could avail the alternative remedy under

¶24

¶25

Rule 108-D(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and the petitioner shall also be at liberty to seek exclusion of the time during which this petition has been pending

¶26

consideration before this Court.

¶27

SD/JUDGE

¶28

M. Munivenkatashamappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Munivenkatashamappa 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

Sri. Biju Thomas Vs Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph

Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatachala Reddy Vs the Tahsildar

Ravisha Vs the Secretary

Chandra Reddy Vs State

Chikkegowda Vs State of Karnataka