Disposed

K K Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2021WP/7252/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During preliminary hearing, the Single Judge noted the petitioners' claim of ownership and cultivation status of lands contrary to Settlement Akarbandh. The court disposed of the writ by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioners' representation and correct the entries within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; permitted to file representation to correct Settlement Akarbandh; respondent directed to act within eight weeks.

K K Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7252/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

K. K. NANJAPPA S/O LATE K. N. KARUMBAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS.

¶8

K K ACHAIAH S/O LATE K N KARUMBAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS.

¶9

K K KAVERIAPPA S/O LATE K N KARUMBAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS,

¶10

K. K. MANDAPPA S/O LATE K N KARUMBAIAH, AGED 51 YEARS,

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KARMAD VILLAGE AMMATHI POST VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶12

... PETITIONERS (By MS. P.C. VINITHA., ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

Sri. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND :

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, DR B. R. AMDBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY THE SECRETARY.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR VIRAJPET TALUK, VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

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

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO MAKE NECESSARY ENTRY REGARDING ASSESSMENT AT ANNEXURE-C & D IN RESPECT OF SY. NO. 201 OF KARMAD VILLAGE MEASURING 2.94 ACRES AND SY. NO. 112 MEASURING 3.59 ACRES OF KUMBERI VILLAGE OF VIRAJPET TALUK IN KODAGU DISTRICT WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD AND ETC

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard, and the records are perused.

¶25

The petitioners, who assert that they are the

¶26

owners in possession of the lands in Sy.No. 201 measuring 2.94 acres in Karmad village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District, and the lands in Sy.Nos.112 measuring 3.59 acres and 133/3 measuring 2.10 acres of Kumberi village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District, contend that they have succeeded to these properties after the demise of their father. The RTC for these lands are mutated in their favour, and even according to the RTC entries, these lands are cultivable lands. Further, these lands, except land in Sy.No.133/3 of Kumberi village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District, are assessed to revenue. The assessment of the land in Sy.No.201 is Rs.39.09/- and of the land in Sy.No.112 is Rs.57.11.

¶27

¶28

There is no kharab in any of these survey numbers. However, in the Revision Settlement Akarband these lands are shown as 'A' kharab.

¶29

The petitioners further contend that the petitioners have filed their representation dated 26.7.2018 with the Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk (the second respondent) requesting him to correct the Revision Settlement Akarbandh to show that the lands are cultivable lands as rightly shown in the RTC and for assessment of the land in Sy.No.133/3 measuring 2.10 acres of Kumberi village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. The petitioners' representation has not been considered over these years. The continuation of the Revision Settlement Akarbandh with these errors and the non-assessment of revenue payable for the land in Sy.No.133/3 of Kumberi village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District would be in denial of the petitioners’ rights.

¶30

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶32

reiterates the petition averments and submits that the second respondent in not considering the representation as per Annexure- C has failed to discharge the statutory obligation and as such, a writ of mandamus to the second respondent to consider the representation and correct the Survey Settlement Akarband and asses the revenue payable for the land in Sy.No.133/3 of Kumberi village of Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District would be necessary. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that non-consideration of the petitioners’ representation cannot be deliberate and if reasonable time is granted the second respondent would take appropriate action in this regard.

¶33

In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed and in the light of the submissions, the petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make a representation, within four [4] weeks from the

¶34

¶35

date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, with the second respondent enclosing a certified copy of the order and the annexures to this writ petition. The second respondent shall, within eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, take necessary action and inform the petitioners in writing about the action taken.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

K K Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K K Nanjappa 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

Jowherunnisa W/O Nazeer Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Girijamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Narasimha Reddy a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Biju Thomas Vs Sri. Sebastian Moolechalil Joseph

Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatachala Reddy Vs the Tahsildar