Disposed

Shri Manoours v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021WP/8893/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the classification of specific land as 'B' kharab. The Court held the petition disposed of, directing the petitioner to file a representation with the Technical Assistant of the Office of Deputy Commissioner for decision under Rule 36 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file detailed representation with Technical Assistant for decision under Rule 36 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

Shri Manoours Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8893/2021 (KLR - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SHRI. MANOOURS. S/O LATE. MALLARAJEURS, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/AT NO.921, KANTHARAJURS ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU – 570004.

¶8

REP. BY G.P.A HOLDER SRI. B.N.SATHISHA, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.41/1, 6A, 12^TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, KEELE MOHALLA, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU – 570 004.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶13

¶14

VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶15

THE ‘A’ KHARAB DETERMINING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU – 570004.

¶16

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, UPOR, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, UPOR, NAZARABAD MYSURU – 570010.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE RECORDS OF MEETING AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-N3 AND N4 RESPECTIVELY) PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT; ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE CLASSIFICATION OF 1 ACRE IN SY. NO. 24/1 AND 21 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO. 24/3 AS ‘B’ KHARAB AND DIRECT THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS TO CLASSIFY THE SAME AS ‘A’ KHARAB AS PER RULE 21 (2) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE RULES, 1966; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT INITAITING APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY AGINST

¶21

¶22

THOSE COMMITTED WRONG IN NOT RECTIFYING APPARENT ERROR AND MAKING PETITIONER RUN FROM PILLAR TO POST FROM 3 YEARS AND IMPOSE COSTS ON OFFICERS IN MAKING WRONG CLASSIFICATION OF 1 ACRE IN SY. NO. 24/1 AND 21 GUNTAS IN SY. NO. 24/3 AS B KHARAB AND DIRECT THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS TO CLASSIFY THE SAME AS ‘A’ KHARAB; ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING JOINT DIRECTOR OF (3^RD RESPONDENT) TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIOENR AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION AS PER RULE 21 (2) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE RULES, 1966 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, who asserts that his mother, Smt. M.V. Lalithammani is the owner of the land in Survey No. 24/1 and Survey No. 24/3 of Nachanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the decision of the ‘A’ Kharab Determining Committee [the second respondent] in its proceedings on 22.01.2021 [Annexure-N3] and the

¶26

¶27

subsequent Endorsement dated 22.01.2021 [AnnexureN4], and for certain consequential reliefs.

¶28

The land in Survey No. 24 is divided into Survey

¶29

No. 24/1 [measuring 1 acre 30 guntas], Survey No. 24/2 [measuring 24 guntas] and Survey No.24/3 [measuring 1 acre 33 guntas]; the land in Survey No. 24/2 is entirely shown as ‘B’ kharab land as it is utilized for formation of road. There is no dispute about the classification of the land in Sy. No. 24/2 as ‘B’ Kharab. The petitioner’s grievance is as regards classification of 1 acre in Survey No. 24/1 and 21 guntas in Survey. No. 24/3 as ‘B’ kharab lands. The petitioner contends that this classification of kharab in Survey Nos. 24/1 and 24/3 is impermissible as these lands are utilized for the purpose of construction of cowshed/storage, storehouse and dwelling house. The petitioner relies upon the Notification issued by the Government on 16.05.2018, which stipulates the lands

¶30

¶31

which are utilized for such purposes can only be ‘A’ kharab and not ‘B’ kharab; and only the lands which are utilized for the public purpose such as road, bridge, canal and such others as mentioned List –2 of the Notification could be ‘B’ kharab.

¶32

The petitioner’s mother has approached this Court in W.P. No. 1337/2019 and W.P. No. 8647/2019 impugning the aforesaid classification. These writ petitions are disposed of by the order dated 30.10.2019 directing the ‘A’ kharab Determining Committee, Mysore District, Mysore [the second respondent] to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner’s mother expeditiously but within an outer limit of three months. After this Court’s order dated 30.10.2019, and on hearing the petitioner, who asserts he has succeeded to the property on the demise of his mother, the second respondent by its decision [as per Annexure-N4] has opined that it would have no jurisdiction to examine the

¶33

¶34

dispute as it relates to ‘B’ kharab. After the decision of the Committee, the impugned Endorsement dated 22.01.2021 [as per Annexure-N4] is issued.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grievance as regards the classification of 1 acre in Survey No. 24/1 and 21 guntas in Survey No. 24/3 as ‘B’ kharab has remained unresolved, and the petitioner is without a remedy. The learned counsel asserts that the classification is erroneous relying upon the aforesaid Notification dated 16.05.2018 and certain reports by the Office of the Joint Director of Land Records, Mysore.

¶36

Presently, the learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record communication dated 05.06.2021 and in terms thereof, it is stated that the petitioner’s request (petitioner’s mother’s request) for

¶37

¶38

correction of the nature of kharab in these two lands would be examined under the provisions of Rule 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and appropriate decision would be taken within six months subject to the decision in O.S.No.82/2019.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the proceedings in O.S. No. 82/2019 is commenced by a third party for specific performance asserting a sale agreement by the petitioner’s mother, and this suit is pending consideration. The dispute in this suit would not have any bearing on the controversy in O.S.No.82/2019; if the petitioner were to fail in such suit, then the plaintiff in the suit would be entitled to the benefit of the correction of the classification of the kharab in these lands as ‘B’ kharab.

¶40

The learned Additional Government Advocate relying upon the Communication dated 05.06.2021 and

¶41

¶42

the enclosures thereto submits that from the time of survey settlement in the year 1965, the kharab in the total land in Survey No. 24 of Nachanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk is shown as ‘B’ kharab. The Technical Assistant of the Office of Deputy Commissioner and Ex-Officio Deputy Director of Land Records, Mysore, the competent authority, would examine the petitioner’s case for correction of kharab under Rule 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 in the light of the previous records and other circumstances, and take an appropriate decision within a period of six months.

¶43

The dispute, as is obvious from the undisputed facts and circumstances and the rival submissions, is as to the nature of kharab in the lands in Survey No.24/1 and Survey No.24/3 of Nachanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. The petitioner contends

¶44

¶45

that such kharab would be ‘A’ kharab while the authorities now state that they will examine the same in the light of the earlier records under Rule 36 of the Karnataka Revenue Rules, 1966. The petitioner and his predecessor-in-title have initiated multiple proceedings. Though the petitioner is backed by certain reports by the Office of the Joint Director of Land Records, the competent Authority - the Technical Assistant of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner and Ex-officio Deputy Director of Land Records - will have to undertake the necessary process for effective

¶46

determination.

¶47

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation with the Technical Assistant of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner and Ex-officio Deputy Director of Land Records, Mysore enclosing the certified copy of this order as also the communication dated 05.06.2021.

¶48

¶49

The petitioner may file such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Technical Assistant of the Office of Deputy Commissioner and Ex-Officio Deputy Director of Land Records shall within a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of such representation, take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law.

¶50

SD/JUDGE

¶51

MBB

Shri Manoours v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Manoours 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.S.P.Vasantha Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

M/S Siddharth Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commisioner of Public Instructions

Smt. Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Garlapati Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

N M Manjunath Vs the Tahsildar

Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka