Disposed

K C Manmatha v. the Prl. Secretary

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021WP/7842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition allowing the petitioner liberty to approach the statutory forum. It observed that the petitioner filed an appeal under the wrong section and an alternative remedy exists under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

K C Manmatha Vs the Prl. Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7842/2021 (KLR-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

K. C. MANMATHA, SON OF LATE CHANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT HAISODLURU VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 249.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI – 571 201.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADIKERI SUB DIVISION, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201.

¶14

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, VIRAJPET TALUK, VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISRTRICT – 571 218.

¶16

AKRAMA SAKRAMA SAMITHI, TALUK OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY TAHASILDHAR, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 218.

¶17

….RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN NO. RA/76/2017-18 PASSED BY THE R2 DATED 22.01.2020 AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION MADIKERI IN NO. NCR (V) 319/14-15 DATED 28.02.2017, BY CANCELING THE GRANT MADE BY THE R5 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 29.07.2011, MEASURING 4 ACRES 95 CENTS AT LAND BEARING SY.NO.181/1C OF HAISODHLURU VILLAGE, HUDIKERI HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A AND B; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 AUTHORITY TO RESTORE REVENUE RECORDS IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO. 181/C OF HAISODHLURU VILLAGE, HUDIKERI HOBLI, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT MEASURING 4 ACRES 95 CENTS 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

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the first to fifth respondents, are heard and the records are perused. The petitioner has impugned the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri Sub-division [the third respondent] in NCRV (319)/2014-15 and the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District [the second respondent] in No. RA/76/2017-18.

¶24

The Assistant Commissioner, Sub-division by the order dated 28.02.2017, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Rule 108(K) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, has set aside the grant in favour of the petitioner by the Committee constituted for consideration of an application under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964. The petitioner’s appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu

¶25

¶26

District [the second respondent] as against such order is dismissed by the impugned order dated 22.01.2020. Though the Deputy Commissioner’s order indicates that the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act [for short, ‘the KLR Act’], it is uncontroverted that the petitioner could not have availed such remedy and the remedy could have been only under Section 49 of the KLR Act. In which event the petitioner would have alternative remedy under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. As such, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, subject to all exceptions in law, to avail such alternative remedy.

¶27

SD/JUDGE

¶28

mbb

K C Manmatha v. the Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K C Manmatha v. the Prl. Secretary

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. Puttaswamy Vs the Dy. Commissioner

Sri Kariyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Siddappa Vs State of Karnataka

M/S. Vedant Projects Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M.K. Govindaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri K Ganapathi Bhat Vs Deputy Commissioner