Dismissed

Channaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2021WP/8923/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging reservation of land for a burial ground by the Deputy Commissioner was rejected. The court held the first petitioner was ineligible under Section 94A due to holding more than two land units, meaning no purpose would be served in directing authorities to consider pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no direction to consider applications; no costs.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8923 OF 2013 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Channaiah S/o Eraiah, aged about 55 years, Occupation: Agriculture

¶9

Basappa S/o Iyanna Aged about 70 years, Occupation: Agriculture

¶10

Both are residents of Bhadrapura village, Shikaripura-Talluk, Shimogga District-577427.

¶11

…Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri.M.R.Hiremathad., Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department Vidhana Soudha, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560 001.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner, Shimogga District, Shimogga-577201.

¶16

¶17

The Senior Sub Divisional Officer, Sagara Sub-Division, 577401, Shivamogga District.

¶18

The Thahasildar Shikaripura-Talluk Shimogga-Dist.577427.

¶19

The Talluka Unauthorised Cultivation Regulation Committee, Represented by its Secretary-Thahsildar Shikaripura-Talluk, Shikaripuar-577427. Shimogga-Dist.

¶20

The Secretary, Tharlaghatta Grama Panchayath, Shikaripura-Talluk, Shikaripuar-577427. Shimogga-Dist.

¶21

… Respondents

¶22

(By Smt.A.R.Sharadamba, AGA for R1 to R5; R6 Served & unrepresented)

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of The Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 24.12.12 passed by R2 vide Annx-A and etc.,

¶24

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶27

AGA.

¶28

This writ petition is preferred questioning the

¶29

proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 24.12.2012

¶30

¶31

whereby the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (herein after referred to as ‘Act’) has been pleased to reserve one acre of land in Sy.No.19 of Bhadrapura Village, Shikaripura Taluk for the purpose of burial ground in the Tharlaghatta Grama Panchayath.

¶32

It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that both the petitioners have been in unauthorized occupation of 3 acres of land each respectively in Sy.No.19 and that their applications are pending consideration and hence that the determination of the pending application for reservation of the land for burial ground of the local panchayat is impermissible.

¶33

Per Contra, the writ petition is strongly resisted by the respondent-State and have filed a detailed statement of objections. The respondent-State vehemently denied the filing of application either in Form No.50 or 53 over Sy.No.19. It is submitted that no application has been filed by the 2^nd petitioner. Learned AGA would submit that on

¶34

¶35

instructions of one G. Shashikumar, SDA, Shikaripura Taluk, who has produced the original of Form 53 Register, and would submit that the Register clearly demonstrates that no application is submitted by the 2^nd petitioner and the same is not entered in the Register. In so far the petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is submitted that the 1^st petitioner is the beneficiary of a grant to an extent of 3 acres and that the father of the 1^st petitioner is also a beneficiary of a grant to an extent of 3 acres. In that view of the matter, it is submitted by the AGA that even assuming that the 1^st petitioner has even filed an application, the 1^st petitioner is ineligible to have his application considered in view of the bar.

¶36

In the light of the provision of the first proviso to Sub-section 4 of Section 94A, it is submitted that the first petitioner on account of inheritance and independent grant now holds more than two units of land and in that view of the matter the first petitioner is ineligible to seek for consideration of the application also. In that view, this court does not find the said fact rebutted. The fact is that the

¶37

¶38

petitioner having inherited three acres of land and he also being the beneficiary of a grant of land to an extent of three acres not being disputed, the first petitioner is rendered ineligible to seek for consideration of his application in terms of Section 94(a) of the Act.

¶39

No purpose would be served in directing the authorities to consider the application and in that view of the matter the said application cannot be construed as an embargo on the Deputy Commission to exercise his powers under Section 71 of the Act.

¶40

In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid

¶41

of merits stands rejected.

¶42

No costs.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Channaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Channaiah 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.Holebassappa Vs the State of Karnataka

M T Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M Krishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vishwanath S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C. Ahamed Moideenchakeri Vs the Tahsildar