Partly allowed

Sri Venkatarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2021WP/9771/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a land regularization grant. The petitioner sought justice as he was denied due process, specifically notice for a survey, before the authority determined his land fell within forest boundaries and canceled the grant. The court quashed the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09.09.2020 is quashed; the authorities are granted liberty to identify forest boundaries after due notice and act under Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9771/2021 (KLR/RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI VENKATARAYAPPA SON OF SRI CHIKKASUBBIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT ROOPARLAHALLI VILLAGE, SADALI HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562105

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK SHIDLAGHATTA - 562 105.

¶14

¶15

SRI MUNIYAPPA SON OF SRI NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶16

SRI RAMANAPPA SON OF SRI NARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶17

SRI B. M. NARAYANA REDDY SON OF SRI MYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶18

SMT CHOWDAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKA BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶19

SRI B M BYRA REDDY SON OF SRI MUDDANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶20

SRI SHIVANNA SON OF SRI DODDA BAJJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶21

SMT RATHNAMMA WIFE OF CHIKKA MADDI REDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶22

SMT VENKATARAMANAMMA WIFE OF BYRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. BYAMMA WIFE OF B.R. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶24

SRI KARIYAPPA REDDY SON OF SRI BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶25

¶26

SRI BYRAPPA SON OF SRI SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,

¶27

SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA SON OF SRI BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶28

SRI LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA SON OF SRI RAMAPPA AGE 65 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. CHOWDAPPA SON OF SRI RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶30

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 17 ARE RESIDING AT BANDAHALLI VILLAGE SADALI HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 105.

¶31

... RESPONDENTS

¶32

(By SRI.R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.06.2021 R4 TO R17 ARE DELETED))

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, ORDER OR WRIT OF LIKE NATURE QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2020 PASSED IN CASE NO. L.N.D.R.A (SHI):91/2018-19 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR, THE SECOND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO. 37 MEASURING 1 ACRE 20 SITUATED AT BANDAHALLI VILLAGE, SADALI HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, THE ANNEXURE 'K' TO

¶34

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶36

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

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the respondent Nos.4 to 17 and no relief is sought against them, and as such these respondents may be deleted. The petition as against respondent Nos.4 to 17 is treated as not pressed, and the petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶39

The petitioner, who is granted an extent of 1

¶40

acre 20 guntas in Sy. No.37 of Bandahalli Village, Sadali Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District [the subject property] by the appropriate Regularization Committee and is issued with Saguvali chit after

¶41

¶42

payment of premium, is before this Court aggrieved by the cancellation of such grant by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura by the impugned order dated 9.9.2020 in the proceedings in No.LND.RA.[Shi]:91/2018-19.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and fourteen others [the Nos.4 to 17] were granted different portions of lands in Sy. No.37 Bandahalli Village, Sadali Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapura District regularizing their unauthorized occupation. Later, it is stated that the Forest Department has communicated to the Assistant Commissioner [the respondent No.2] that out of fifteen persons, only five persons would be entitled for grant as their lands would be outside the forest boundary. The others, including the petitioner, could not have been granted the respective extents because those extents would be within the forest boundary. The petitioner has

¶44

¶45

also applied for the records pertaining to the joint survey conducted by the Forest Department to justify its report to the Assistant Commissioner that the petitioner's land would be within the forest boundary unlike as in the case of the five other persons. The petitioner is issued with an endorsement by the Forest Department stating that the survey details have not been furnished.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that neither the petitioner nor the others whose possession is alleged to be within the forest boundary, have been issued with any notice of survey. The petitioner is granted the subject land after all due process, and if the grant is to be canceled because the subject land is within the forest boundary, there must be due notice of the survey to the petitioner. A determination that the subject land is within the forest boundary without even a notice of survey would

¶47

¶48

tantamount to denial of the petitioner's substantive right in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order must be quashed.

¶49

The learned Additional Government Advocate

¶50

in reiteration of what is stated in the impugned order submits that there could not have been regularization in favour of the petitioner or nine others if their land is part of forest and as such, the Assistant Commissioner's impugned order would be justified. But, the learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to substantiate that the report by the Forest Department to the Assistant Commissioner was preceded by notice of survey to the petitioner or that the Assistant Commissioner independently undertook any exercise, after notice to the petitioner, to ascertain whether the subject property would be within the forest boundary. The impugned order, when tested against this undisputed position, cannot be sustained as lack of

¶51

¶52

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner would be undeniable. Therefore the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The writ petition is allowed in part, the

¶55

impugned order dated 9.9.2020 in No.LND.RA.[Shi]:91/2018-19 of the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub-Division, Chikkaballapura is quashed with liberty to the authorities, including the Forest Department, to take all such measures as would be necessary to identify the boundaries of the Forest land after due notice to the petitioner and take necessary action as contemplated under Rule 108K of

¶56

the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

AN/-

Sri Venkatarayappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatarayappa 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

Shri Manoours Vs the State of Karnataka

Garlapati Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

N M Manjunath Vs the Tahsildar

Smt Narasamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Chikkamuniyappa @ Muniyappa Dead by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka