Disposed

Manjappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2022WP/1018/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks a direction to ensure that an application filed by the petitioner for re-grant of land under Section 5 of the Karnataka State Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, is considered by the Tahsildar.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 10.10.2013 for re-grant of land and pass an appropriate order within four months.

Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.1018 OF 2019 (KVOA)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MANJAPPA SON OF DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF KADLEBALU-VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA.N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE.

¶14

3 . THE THASILDAR * DAVANGERE TALUK, *DAVANAGERE - DISTRICT.

¶15

HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O LATE DURUGAVVA

¶16

corrected and deleted vide court order dated 22.04.2024

¶17

¶18

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

¶19

HALAPPA, S/O DURUGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶20

KUGAMMA D/O PARVATHAMA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶21

SHANTHAMMA, D/O LATE DASAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶22

H.RAMAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED AOBUT 48 YEARS,

¶23

RAJAPPA, S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶24

NAGARAJA, S/O LATE HANUMAVVA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶25

K R RAVIKUMAR S/O REVANASIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶26

B.J.ANANDA, S/O LATE JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶27

ALL ARE R/O. KADLEBALU VILLAGE & POST DAVANAGERE DISTRIT 577 589.

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R12)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO CONSIDER THE REQUISITION DTD: 10.10.2013 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-F AND DIRECT THE R-3 TO TAKE ACTION TO RE GRANT THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petitioner claiming that his predecessor was granted with the subject land bearing Sy.No.51, Kadlebalu Village, in lieu of the services rendered by him, and his name was mutated in the revenue records, filed an application for the re-grant of the subject land under Section 5 of the Act upon commencement of the Karnataka State Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner's grievance is that the said application is not considered by the Tahsildar-respondent No.3.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

respondent Nos.4 to 12 submits that the said respondents have also filed an application for re-grant of the said land on 19.09.2020 in terms of Section 5 of the Act. The petitioners and respondent

¶37

Retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 22.04.2024

¶38

¶39

Nos.4 to 12 are claiming to be the rival claimants and have filed applications for re-grant of the subject land under Section 5 of the Act.

¶40

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the petition directing respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 10.10.2013 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-F and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

It is made clear if respondent Nos.4 to 12 have filed a similar application for re-grant of land under Section 5 of the Act, respondent No.3 to club both the applications and pass an appropriate order.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

RKA

Manjappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjappa 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

Madappa P Vs Vijayanagara Police Station

Mr Abhay Singh @ Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Astamija Dash Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Indumathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Ravindra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Firoze Vs the Secretary