Disposed

Smt Thaslima Banu v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2021WP/8272/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation under Section 94-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The court directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's application expeditiously but refused an interim stay against eviction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to expeditiously consider the petitioner's application dated 16.12.2020 strictly in accordance with law.

Smt Thaslima Banu Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8272/2021 (KLR - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SMT. THASLIMA BANU, W/O SYED KHALANDAR BASHA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT ANEGUNDHA, BELANDURU VILLAGE, SHRUNGER TALUK – 577 139.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.JAGADEESH D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALORE – 577 101.

¶12

THE TAHSILDAR, SRINGERI TALUK – 577 139, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT.

¶13

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, SRINGERI RANGE, SRINGERI TALUK – 577 139, CHICKMAGALORE DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE DATED 16.12.2020 ANNEXURE-C TREATING IT AS ONE FILED U/S 94-C OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT AND THE RULES FRAMED THERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard for final disposal. The petitioner has filed this petition for a direction to the respondents to consider the application dated 16.12.2020 [Annexure-C] treating the same as an application under Section 94-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Rules framed therein.

¶21

¶22

The petitioner’s case is that she is in unauthorized occupation of an area measuring 30 X 40 feet in Survey No. 109 of Bellandur village, Sringeri Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District and she has constructed a dwelling house therein. She is entitled to submit an application for regularization of unauthorized occupation of the said land and as such she has filed an application.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has not filed the application in the prescribed Form, the respondents would have to consider the same in the light of the direction of this Court in W.P. No.4938/2021 which is disposed of by an order dated 15.04.2021. The learned counsel relies upon the paragraph 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 4938/2021 which reads as under:-

¶24

¶25

Be that as it may, a bare reading of the provisions of Section 94-A and 94-C of the Act, would clearly demonstrate that these are beneficial pieces of legislation whereby the legislature has aimed at uplifting the living standards of the poor and down trodden. The object of the legislature, is apparently to provide an opportunity to the poor, the landless and the houseless to eek out livelihood and to have a shelter over their heads. The ‘right to life’ as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court includes the right to live with dignity and right to live with dignity encompasses within itself the right to a roof over the heads of the homeless.

¶26

In that view of the matter and in the light of the tone and tenor of the legislature, it is the duty of the executive and the officials to reach out to such people and examine the genuineness of their cases and implement the law in letter and spirit.

¶27

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-D and treat it as an application and consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules and make an effort to implement the law in true spirit.

¶28

¶29

In the event, the respondents are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the site in question over which she has built the house, it is open to the respondents to examine as to whether any other alternate site can be granted to enable the petitioner and her family to have a roof over their heads.

¶30

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶31

seeks leave to place on record a copy of the First Information Report, registered by the Deputy Range Forest Officer, Sringeri zone against the petitioner and others for the offences under the provisions of Sections 33, 114, 76 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Rule 25 and 43 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 as also certain photographs and a mahazar. The learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted and these documents are taken on record.

¶32

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that for regularization of a dwelling house

¶33

¶34

under Section 94-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964, an unauthorized occupant must not only file an application in the prescribed Form but also within the time prescribed. The applicant must also have constructed a dwelling house before 1^st January 2015, the time stipulated under the provisions of Section 94-C of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In the present case it is admitted that the petitioner had not filed such applications within time prescribed, and the petitioner definitely has not constructed any dwelling house as of the prescribed date. The land in Survey No. 109 of Bellandur village, Sringeri Taluk, Chikkamagalur District is a forest land and therefore, no application for regularization cannot be entertained.

¶35

The learned Additional Government

¶36

Advocate, while drawing distinction between the facts of

¶37

the present case and the facts in the petition in W.P.No.4938/2021, submits that in any event the writ

¶38

¶39

petition in W.P.No.4938/2021 is disposed of only issuing a mandamus with certain observations without declaring any law that would prevail in all circumstances. These observations are not to be construed as a binding declaration of law that the respondents must in all circumstances, notwithstanding the statutory requirements and restrictions, consider the application and examine whether any alternative site can be granted.

¶40

In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the

¶41

petitioner submits that the petitioner’s only request is for the disposal of the writ petition in similar lines as in W.P.No.4938/2021 with directions to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the premises until the petitioner’s request is considered.

¶42

¶43

In the present case, the materials recorded

¶44

prima facie indicate that the petitioner has been evicted from the land in Survey No.109 of Bellandur village, Sringeri Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District and there is a recent effort to construct certain structure leading to initiation of criminal proceedings. Further, there is no material on record to indicate the petitioner had constructed a dwelling house as now asserted before the statutory cutoff date and significantly, the provisions of Section 94-C (vii) of the Act mandate that no land shall be granted if such construction is in Forest Land. These circumstances are distinct and separate from the facts in W.P.No. 4938/2021. As such, while there could be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request as per the representation dated 16.12.2020 (Annexure-C) strictly in accordance with the law, there cannot be a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner. Hence the following:

¶45

¶46

O R D E R

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of directing the

¶48

respondent authorities to expeditiously consider the petitioner’s application dated 16.12.2020 [Annexure-C] strictly in accordance with law.

¶49

SD/JUDGE

¶50

mbb

Smt Thaslima Banu v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Thaslima Banu v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ramesh P N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Elizibethamma @ Shanthamma Vs State of Karnataka

Nandappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Gangappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy K M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H M Rajappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner