Disposed

H R Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2021WP/6550/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order by the Assistant Commissioner terminating proceedings to forfeit land. The High Court threw up the matter to the Tahasildar who must conclude proceedings under Section 60 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed as proceedings to be concluded by the Tahasildar under Section 60 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

H R Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6550 OF 2021 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.R.NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶9

M.K.SHIVANNA, S/O LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶10

BYRAPPA, S/O LATE BYRASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶11

K. HANUMANTHE GOWDA, S/O LATE GALI KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL ARE AGRICULTURIST, R/AT MADAKARIPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT- 577 524.

¶12

... PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.JAGAN MOHAN M.T., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

¶17

2.	DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3.	ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
4.	TAHASILDAR, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
5.	M.T.DAYANANDA REDDY, S/O LATE M THIMMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
6.	M.T.RAMANANDA REDDY, S/O LATE M THIMMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
7.	M.T.DHUSHYANTHA REDDY, S/O LATE M THIMMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
8.	M.T. EKANTHA REDDY, S/O LATE M THIMMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8 R/AT MADAKARIPURA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 524. ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 - 4)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.01.2020 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE - F AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4.

¶24

The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by respondent No.3 refusing to entertain their complaint for not forfeiting the land of respondent Nos.5 to 8 under Section 60 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioners claimed that the land bearing re-Sy.No.100 of Madakaripura measuring 25 acres 4 guntas belonged to Kalahastheshwara Temple. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 claimed to be tenants in the aforesaid land and they were registered as occupants. The petitioners submitted a representation to respondent No.4 contending that respondent Nos.5 to 8 were not personally cultivating the land and sought restoration of the land back to the temple, which was a Muzrai Institution. The respondent No.4 submitted a report to respondent No.3 indicating that

¶25

¶26

respondent Nos.5 to 8 had not cultivated the land. Respondent No.3 thereafter initiated proceedings against respondent Nos.5 to 8. Later, the respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed a writ petition before this Court to direct respondent No.3 to conclude the proceedings at the earliest. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 09.01.2020 terminating the proceedings as under Section 60 of the Act of 1961, it was respondent No.4 who had to conclude the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition on the ground that respondent No.3 ought not to have terminated the proceedings as the respondent No.4 had already submitted his report that the respondent Nos.5 to 8 were not cultivating the land.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that respondent No.4 has already submitted a report indicating that respondent Nos.5 to 8 were not cultivating the land in question and therefore, there was nothing else to be

¶28

¶29

considered by the Assistant Commissioner but a formal order had to be passed resuming the land.

¶30

A perusal of the order dated 09.01.2020, merely indicates that respondent No.3 had relegated the parties before respondent No.4 in view of the fact that under Section 60 of the Act, it is the respondent No.4 who has to take action. The respondent No.3 had therefore held

¶31

as hereunder

¶32

"ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV ¸ÉPÀë£ï 60gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ CUÀvÀå PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ J¯Áè CªÀPÁ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ wÃªÀiÁð¤¹ F PÉ¼ÀV£ÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¹zÉ.

¶33

DzÃ±É À

¶34

¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:09-01-2020 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀAvÉ ZÀa¹gÀÄªÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹ «¯ÉÃ¥Àr¹zÉ."

¶35

Since the issue is now under consideration before

¶36

respondent No.4, the petitioners are at liberty to approach respondent No.4 and urge all the contentions including the forfeiture/resumption of the land under Section 60 of the Act. Respondent No.3 shall take into consideration the

¶37

¶38

explanation offered by respondent Nos.5 to 8 for noncultivation of the land and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶39

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed

¶40

off .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

NR/-

H R Narayanaswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H R Narayanaswamy 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 Doddabailappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mohammed Saleem Vs Smt C P Nagaveni

Sri G Dharmalingam Vs Sri R Sekar

Sri v Sathyanarayana Setty Vs Sri Bhadra Reddy

Mr. B Premnath Reddy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Devamma Vs Smt Sunanda