Remanded

Sri N M Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2022WP/10527/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed Revenue Authorities to consider an ex-serviceman's application seeking regularization of unauthorized land occupation by treating it as an application under Form 50 or 53 and completing the exercise within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent authorities to consider the application as one under Form 50 or 53 and pass orders within three months.

Sri N M Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 10527 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10527 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. N. M. MANJUNATH

¶9

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NANDI VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, PIN CODE 562101.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

¶16

M.S.BUILDING,

¶17

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

¶19

WP No. 10527 of 2022

¶20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶21

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,

BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,

KUNDANA HOBLI,

DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

PIN CODE 562110.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,

¶27

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN CODE 561203.

¶28

TAHSILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, PIN CODE 562110.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S. HONNAPURA, AGA)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO R3 TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXURE-C FOR ISSUING SAGUVALI CHIT, MUTATION AND REVENUE ENTIRES BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDER DATED 03.07.1999 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.25 MEASURING 5 ACRES OF KEMPA THIMMANNAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

WP No. 10527 of 2022

¶35

ORDER

¶36

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶37

The prayer in this writ petition is to direct third respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura SubDivision, to consider the representation dated 06.12.2021 made by the petitioner at Annexure-C, for issuance of Saguvali Chit and mutate revenue entries in his name in the land revenue records by virtue of the order LND.CR.323/1991-92, dated 03.07.1999, in respect of land in Sy.No.25, measuring 5.00 acres situated at Kempa Thimmanahalli village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.

¶38

It is the contention of the petitioner that petitioner is an ex-serviceman and he made an application bearing No.84120105 dated 30.12.1991 through his

¶39

employer to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner requesting for grant of land in favour of the petitioner. Upon the application made by the petitioner, the concerned Tahsildar recommended the case of the petitioner citing the report of the Revenue Inspector,

¶40

¶41

WP No. 10527 of 2022

¶42

Kundana Hobli, for grant of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.25 of Kempa Thimmanahalli Village. In the meanwhile, the petitioner started cultivating 5-00 acres of land in Sy.No.25 of Kempa Thimmannahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.

¶43

However, the petitioner gave a representation that he was already in unauthorized occupation of 5.00 acres of land in Sy.No.25 and he requested for grant of the same land in his favour. The petitioner went on giving representations, but the same have not been considered by the respondent authorities.

¶44

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court should take a lenient view in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that when it is not disputed by the respondent-authorities that the petitioner made an application seeking grant of land way back in the year 1991 and he has been in unauthorized occupation of 5.00 acres of land in Sy.No.25, the request made by the petitioner should not be rejected.

¶45

¶46

WP No. 10527 of 2022

¶47

Having regard to the peculiar facts and

¶48

circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no harm or prejudice will be caused to any other person if this Court would direct the respondentauthorities to consider the application given by the petitioner bearing No.84120105 dated 30.12.1991 as an application seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation and consider the same as an application in Form No.50 or 53, as the case may be.

¶49

It is not disputed at the hands of the learned AGA that the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of 5.00 acres of land either under the ex-serviceman quota or for regularization of unauthorized occupation is within the limits prescribed under both the provisions. It is only because of the technical problem that the respondentauthorities found that they are unable to accede to the request made by the petitioner.

¶50

Having regard to such peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit to direct the

¶51

¶52

WP No. 10527 of 2022

¶53

respondent-authorities to consider the application made by the petitioner bearing No.84120105 dated 30.12.1991 as an application made in Form No.50 or 53 (requisition of unauthorized occupation at the relevant point of time) and place the application before the Committee for Regularization of Unauthorized Occupation and pass necessary orders, having regard to the directions issued by this Court. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

Ordered accordingly.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sri N M Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N M Manjunath 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Ningegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Patalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs the Secretary

Nataraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka