Disposed

Sri. Ningegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2022WP/26989/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of endorsement rejecting his land grant application. Court directed authorities to treat a 1970 grant application under Karnataka Land Grant Rules 1969 as an application for regularisation of unauthorised occupation under Form No.50 or 53 and consider it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to consider the 1970 application as a regularisation application under Form No.50 or 53 and pass orders within three months.

Sri. Ningegowda Vs State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 26989 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 26989 OF 2017 (KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NINGEGOWDA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA @ SANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.7,

¶9

HOSAHALLI VILLAGE SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTIRCT-573201

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT

¶15

M S BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTIRCT HASSAN-573201

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION

¶18

¶19

WP No. 26989 of 2017

¶20

HASSAN DISTIRCT-573201

¶21

THE TAHASILDAR CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK CHANNARAYAPATNA HASSAN DISTIRCT-573116

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD IN LND 01/2017-18 AND MDLND9/72-73 ON THE FILE OF R-4 AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 13.6.2017 BEARING NO. LND 01/2017-18 ISSUED BY R-4 AT ANNEX-G AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶28

The petitioner made an application in Form No.1 under Rule 8(1) of The Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 in the year 1970 registered as LNDMD No.20/1971-72. The concerned Tahsildar recommended the case of the petitioner citing the report of the Revenue Inspector,

¶29

¶30

WP No. 26989 of 2017

¶31

Shravanabelagola Hobli, for grant of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.42 of Arvanahalli Village. In the meanwhile, the petitioner started cultivating 5 acres of land in Sy.No.48 of Arvanahalli Village. Nevertheless, 2 hectares of land in Sy.No.42 was granted in favour of the petitioner.

¶32

However, since the petitioner gave a

¶33

representation that he was already in unauthorized occupation of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.48 and he requested for grant of the same land, the grant in Sy.No.42 was made in favour of 2 other applicants Sri C.V.Puttaraju and K.H.Subbaramu. The petitioner went on giving representations. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.7275/2017 and this Court by order dated 17.03.2017 recorded the submission of the learned HCGP and directed the respondent-authorities to consider the representations given by the petitioner and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, the impugned endorsement dated 13.06.2017 has been issued by the

¶34

¶35

WP No. 26989 of 2017

¶36

respondent-Tahsildar, Channarayapatna Taluk, stating that no land has been reserved for ex-servicemen in Sy.No.48 and the petitioner has not made any application in Form

¶37

No.50 or 53 seeking regularization of unauthorised occupation and therefore, his representation to consider regularization of unauthorized occupation of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.48 also cannot be considered.

¶38

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 1970 and he has been in unauthorized occupation of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.48, which is adjacent to Sy.No.42 of the same Village, on mere technical grounds, the request made by the petitioner should not be rejected.

¶39

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no harm or prejudice will be caused to any

¶40

¶41

WP No. 26989 of 2017

¶42

other person if this Court would direct the respondentauthorities to consider the application given by the petitioner in LNDMD No.20/71-72 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.

¶43

It is not disputed at the hands of the learned AGA that the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of 5 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.

¶44

Having regard to such peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent-authorities to consider the application made by the petitioner in LNDMD.No.20/71-72, as an application made in Form No.50 or 53 (requisition of unauthorized

¶45

¶46

WP No. 26989 of 2017

¶47

occupation at the relevant point of time) and place the application before the Committee for regularization 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.

¶48

Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

JT/CT:JL

Sri. Ningegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ningegowda 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri E Krishnappa Vs the Assistant Commisisoner

Papayya M N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Srinivas Vs State of Karnataka Rep. by

Sri. Patalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Munilakshmamma Vs the Secretary

Sri Rudresh Vs the State of Karnataka