Allowed

Sri Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021WP/7503/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Tahsildar's rejection of an application for land regularization. The High Court held the Tahsildar lacked authority under Rule 108-CC(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, and quashed the endorsement, directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 17.9.2018 rejected by the Tahsildar is quashed. The Tahsildar is directed to place the application before the Deputy Commissioner to determine eligibility within three months.

Sri Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7503 OF 2021 (KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN: SRI MUIRAJU S/O LATE GOLLARA MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT BYAPPANAHALI VILLAGE BAGALURU POST JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT.

¶8

... PETITIONER (BY SHRI PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SHRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA)

¶14

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ENDORSEMET DATED 17.9.2018 IN NO.LND/NA/CR/79/17-18 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS FOR GRANT/REGULARIZATION OF LAND MEASURING 2 ACRES IN Sy.No. 80 OF BYAPPANAHALLI, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a writ of Certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 17^th September, 2018 issued by the Tahsildar, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶20

By virtue of the said endorsement, the application filed by the petitioner under Form 53 for regularization of the land in his possession was rejected by the second respondent- Tahsildar on

¶21

¶22

the ground that the land was situated within 18 kms. from the city of Bengaluru and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible.

¶23

Shri Prince Isac, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Tahsildar could not have so rejected the application and the same ought to have been placed before the Committee constituted under Rule 108-CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, 'the said Rules of 1966'). He would submit that the Tahsildar not being the proper officer, ought not to have decided the same.

¶24

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri R.Srinivas Gowda submits that the Rule applicable is Rule 108-CC (3) of the said Rules of 1966 wherein it is the Deputy Commissioner of the district or any other officer authorized under Section 94-B of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, who would have the power to

¶25

¶26

determine the said issue and to make a recommendation to the Committee.

¶27

In the present case, the Tahsildar who is also the Secretary of the Committee, has considered the application and rejected the same for want of eligibility. Therefore, there was no need for the application to be placed before the Committee.

¶28

Heard Shri Prince Isac, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.Srinivas Gowda, learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶29

A perusal of Rule 108-CC (3) of the said Rules of 1966 indicates that it is the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer authorized under Section 94B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Despite enquiry, Shri Srinivas Gowda is unable to produce any authorization in favour of the Tahsildar.

¶30

The Tahsildar is only a receiving officer as regards any application filed for determining the eligibility

¶31

¶32

or otherwise of the applicant. In terms of Rule 108-CC(3) of the said Rules of 1966, it would have to be made by the Deputy Commissioner or any other officer authorized under Section 94-B of the Land Revenue Act.

¶33

In the present case, the determination has been made by the Tahsildar which is not proper and correct. Therefore, the endorsement dated 17^th September, 2018 is hereby quashed. The second respondent- Tahsildar is directed to place the application and all documents annexed to it before the Deputy Commissioner who shall determine the eligibility or otherwise of the petitioner for regularization.

¶34

The application having been pending for the last 23 years (Annexure-A dated 30^th April, 1998), the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the same in accordance with the law as it stood on the date of the application and comply with the requirements of Rule 108-CC(3) of the said Rules of 1966

¶35

¶36

within a period of three months from the date of

¶37

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶38

The writ petition is allowed with the above

¶39

observations.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

VGH

Sri Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Muniraju 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

Sri Aslam Pasha Vs Syed Ibrahim @ Chand Pasha

Sri. H R Rangesh Vs Maruthi M.N. Gowda

T K Sabu Vs Jayanthkumar S

Smt Shylashree Rai Vs the State of Karnataka

Amit Garg Vs Indecomm Global Services (Mauritius)

Sri. M K Ananth Vs M/S Indian Bank