Allowed

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

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2021WP/9852/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the Writ Petition, quashing an endorsement by the Tahsildar refusing to issue a Saguvali chit. The Court directed reference to the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules to determine the land's status relative to B.B.M.P. limits and protected the petitioners' possession pending this inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned Endorsement dated 11.01.2016; directed the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the reference under Rule 108K; protected petitioners' possession.

Sri. Chikkamuniyappa @ Muniyappa Dead by Lrs Vs the State… — Land Acquisition | 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.9852/2016 (KLR/REG)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA DEAD BY LRS

¶8

1(a). RAMAKKA

¶9

W/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶10

1(b). MUNIPATALAPPA

¶11

S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶12

1(c). ANJINAPPA

¶13

S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

¶14

ALL ARE R/AT THARAHUNISE VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 157.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(By SRI. KEMPANNA., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND :

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶19

REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

¶21

THE DY. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 09.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK YELAHANKA BANGALORE - 64.

¶23

THE CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION, TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 09.

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(By SRI.A.R. SRINIVASA., AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR CERTIORARI QUASHING ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR DATED 11.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. BEARING NO. L.N.D/N.A/C.R/236/15-16; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE SAGUVALI CHIT TO THE PETITIONERS BASED ON THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED CULTIVATION DATED 31.08.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate are heard with their consent for final disposal of the petition. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the Endorsement dated 11.01.2016 in

¶31

No.LND/NA/CR/236/215-16 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North [Additional] Taluk, Yelahanka SubDivision, Bengaluru - the third respondent. The impugned endorsement dated 11.01.2016 is issued by the third respondent informing the third petitioner, Sri. Anjinappa, that it would be impermissible in law to issue Saguvali chit for the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No.87 of Tharahunise Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk [for short, 'the subject land'] as the same is within 18 kilometers from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits.

¶32

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that way back in the year 2005 the appropriate Regularization Committee, by the resolution dated 31.08.2005, has resolved to grant different portions of lands in Sy. No.87 of Tharahunise Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk in favour of more than 15 persons regularizing their respective unauthorized occupation. The petitioners' father, Sri. Chikkamuniyappa, is one of the 15 beneficiaries. The other beneficiaries are issued with the Saguvali chit , but the petitioners' father is not issued with the Saguvali chit . The test is whether the subject property was within the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits as of the date of the application, and the subject property was not within such limits as of the date of the application. Therefore, the impugned Endorsement cannot be sustained.

¶34

¶35

The learned Additional Government

¶36

Advocate, on receiving instructions from the third respondent who is present before the Court, submits that the impugned Endorsement is issued in compliance with the Circular bearing No.RD.168.LGP.2014 dated 09.06.2014 which precludes issuance of Saguvali chit where the property is within the limits prescribed even if there is a Resolution. Insofar as the Committee's resolution for regularization despite the fact that the lands could be within the limits, the Circular dated 09.06.2014 mentions that the proper recourse would be to make a reference to the concerned Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 [for short 'the Rules].

¶37

When this is pointed out, the third respondent submits appropriate action will be taken within two weeks from today to refer the petitioner's application under Rule 108K of the Rules. The learned

¶38

¶39

Additional Government Advocate submits that the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners could be examined by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in the enquiry consequent to such reference.

¶40

In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the petitioners’ father nor the petitioners are guilty of fraud or breach of any condition and as such, the proceedings for cancellation cannot be initiated by a reference under Rule 108K of the Rules. The learned counsel submits that there is threat of dispossession reiterating that the resolution for grant cannot be cancelled under Rule 108K of the Rules on the ground that the subject land is presently within the radius of 18 Kilometers because as of the date of the application by the petitioners’ father the subject land was not within such radius.

¶41

¶42

The third respondent stoutly denies that there is any threat of dispossession, and he states that until a decision is taken in the reference by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioners will not be disturbed and the petitioner’s apprehension in this regard is unfounded but the petitioners cannot alter the nature of the subject land until such decision.

¶43

In this case, it is undisputed that the

¶44

Regularization Committee has resolved to grant the subject land to the petitioners' father as in the case of those persons who were also in occupation of different portions of the land in Sy. No.87 of Tharahunise Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. These persons have been issued with appropriate Saguvali chits. The authorities, indeed, if they are of the opinion that any recommendation for grant under Rule 108D of the Rules is liable to be cancelled for violations of the conditions of grant, or on the ground of fraud, could commence the

¶45

¶46

proceedings under Rule 108K of the Rules and resume such land. However, the impugned endorsement is issued without recourse to the provisions of Rule 108K of the Rules.

¶47

Further, the petitioners contend that there is

¶48

neither fraud nor violation of any condition of the grant, and the subject land was outside the prescribed limits. But the authorities contend that there could not have been a grant in favour of the petitioners' father because it would be within 18 Kilometers from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits. These questions will have to be gone into by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner on a reference under Rule 108K of the Rules, and the decision in these regards cannot be indefinitely postponed leaving substantive rights in a suspended state. It is now stated that such reference will be made within two weeks from today. In the light of the foregoing the following:

¶49

¶50

ORDER

¶51

[a] The writ petition is disposed of quashing the Endorsement dated 11.01.2016 in No.LND/NA/CR/236/215-16 issued by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North [Additional] Taluk, Yelahanka Sub-Division, Bengaluru - the third respondent with liberty to complete the reference to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner under Rule 108K of the Rules.

¶52

[b] The Assistant Commissioner is directed to dispose of such reference, after due notice to the petitioners and in accordance with law, in a time bound manner. The Petitioners are reserved with liberty to canvass all such grounds as would be available in law to defend the grant in

¶53

¶54

their father’s favour in the event there is a reference.

¶55

[c] The petitioners’ possession of the land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No.87 of Tharahunise Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk [the subject land] shall not be disturbed otherwise than by law, and if there is a reference to the Assistant Commissioner as now submitted, the petitioners shall not alter the nature of the subject land until the decision in such reference.

¶56

SD/JUDGE

¶57

AN/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chikkamuniyappa @ Muniyappa Dead by Lrs 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

Sri Venkatarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Narasamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Puttaswamy Nayaka Vs the Deputy Commissioner