Disposed

Sri Sridhar Kakarla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2021WP/6608/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought a direction to prevent coercive steps against his property. The court permitted the petitioner to file a representation before the Tahsildar regarding allegations of encroachment under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, waiving the requirement of a separate notice and directing auth

What did the court decide?

Permitted to file a representation with the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk regarding encroachment under Section 192-A, waiving separate notice requirement.

Sri Sridhar Kakarla Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6608/2020 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI. SRIDHAR KAKARLA, S/O NOOKARAJU KAKARLA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.101, DHANUSH GRAND APARTMENT, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT, OFF. BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

¶13

BANGALORE SOUTH, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE BRUHATH MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶16

THE KARNATAKA PUBLIC LAND CORPORATION LTD., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶17

THE BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TASK FORCE, OFFICE OF B.B.M.P.,

¶18

HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶20

THE LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NO.49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶21

BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.

¶22

….RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO TAKE ANY COERCIVE STEPS IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER THE

¶25

¶26

DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.22983/2010 DATED 06.08.2010, W.P.NO.22988/2010 DATED 06.08.2010, W.P.NO.22986/2010 DATED 06.08.2010, W.P.NO.22984/2010 DATED 06.08.2010, W.P.NO.20072/2010 DATED 01.07.2010, MARKED AT ANNEXURES-G, G1, G2, G3 AND G4 RESPECTIVELY TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard for final disposal.

¶30

The petitioner, who asserts ownership of a Site

¶31

carved out of Sy.Nos.120 and 121 of Kammanahalli village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, now called Tejasvininagar, has filed this petition for a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive measures and in this regard relies upon the orders of this Court in W.P.No.22983/2010 and connected

¶32

¶33

matters disposed of on 6.8.2010. These orders are enclosed as Annexure-'G' series to this writ petition.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that many residents of Tejasvini Nagara have approached this Court because of the possible dispossession from their respective properties in the layout as the concerned authorities have issued show cause notices for initiation of proceedings against them. The representations submitted by these persons, after the disposal of the above petitions, are pending consideration, and a direction be issued to the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation along with the representation filed by the others with necessary protection in the interregnum.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is no dispute about the occupation of

¶36

¶37

the land in Survey Nos.120 and 121 of Kammanahalli village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, but the controversy is because the adjacent lake in Survey No. 110 of Kammanahalli village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk is encroached by some. In view of this controversy, the State Government has constituted a one man Committee headed by Sri K.B. Koliwad, a Former Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly. This Committee has submitted its report, and it is pursuant to such report that notices have been issued to certain persons who are identified as having encroached portion of land in Survey No.110 of Kammanahalli village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.

¶38

The learned Additional Government

¶39

Advocate further submits that if the petitioner apprehends that there can be a possible action against him because there could be allegations of the encroachment, and the petitioner seeks an

¶40

¶41

opportunity to show cause on his own, the petitioner could be permitted to file such representation. The authorities will consider the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶42

On perusal of the records, and in the light of the submission now made, without any observation on the merits of the claim either by the petitioner or by the respondent, and because the petitioner waives the requirement of a separate notice, the petitioner, to serve the interests of justice, is permitted to file representation with the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru showing cause against the possible initiation of proceedings under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 for encroachment of the land in Survey No.110 of Kammanahalli village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioner

¶43

¶44

shall file such representation within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

If the petitioner files such representation under acknowledgment, the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk [the sixth respondent] shall expeditiously consider the same strictly in accordance with law along with other pending representations filed by those persons to whom notice is already issued under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It would needless to observe that the petitioner shall not be disturbed until such due consideration of the representation.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

mbb

Sri Sridhar Kakarla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sridhar Kakarla 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. Y Dinakar Shetty Vs the Tahsildar

Jana Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Bank of Baroda

K Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaswamy Vs the Dy. Commissioner

Sri Kariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka