Disposed

Smt. Rathnamma v. Special Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/1939/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an impugned order granting Saguvali Chit for land allegedly barged upon by others. Respondent AGA agreed to investigate the grievance. The Writ Petition was disposed of, with relief contingent on genuine proof and a three-month timeline.

What did the court decide?

Agreed to instruct clients to look into grievances; if grant is genuine, issue Saguvali Chit within three months.

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Special Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1939 OF 2013(KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.RATHNAMMA, W/O LATE BALAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT HOOVINAYAKNAHALLI GRAMA, JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.K.V.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH AND NORTH URBAN TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 002.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH URBAN TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064.

¶14

THE SEPCIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KIADB, NO.3/2, 3^RD FLOOR, KHENI BUILDING, 1^ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 09.

¶15

… RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.8.11 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNX-F.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The grievance of the Petitioner is as to grant of Saguvali Chit for the land in question. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the claim for Saguvali Chit cannot be considered when some unscrupulous have

¶22

barged on the land in question. In support of his contention, he draws attention of the Court to the Tahsildar’s Report that mentions about land being barged upon. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that if somebody has unauthorizedly barged on to his client’s land, some action should follow to remove such occupation, only then can the application of the kind can be considered.

¶23

Learned AGA having entered appearance for

¶24

the Respondents opposes the Petition contending that the Petitioner is not in possession of the subject land;

¶25

¶26

going even by his own version, when others have illegally occupied the land, the question of regularizing the alleged occupation would not arise. Having so contended, he now fairly agrees to instruct his clients to look into the grievance of the Petitioner as aired in the Representation

¶27

dated 30.07.2022.

¶28

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open, costs having been made easy.

¶29

If grant is found to be genuine Petitioner shall be

¶30

issued the subject Saguvali Chit.

¶31

Time for compliance is three months.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Bsv

Smt. Rathnamma v. Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rathnamma v. Special Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Bhaskar Vs the Special Land Tribunal

Smt.Meenakshi Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri Muthurayappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

L. Nagaraju Vs the Tahsildar

Sri K R Rajesh Vs the Deputy Commisioner

Tholisamma Vs State of Karnataka