Allowed

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2022WP/3089/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus to restore 3 acres 21 guntas of land pursuant to a Deputy Commissioner order. Court directed Assistant Commissioner to restore land after ascertaining no further challenge.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to take appropriate measures to restore subject land consequent to Deputy Commissioner's orders after ascertaining such order is not called in question.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.3089/2022 (SC/ST)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LAKSHMAMMA W/O PALAPPA @ PALANNA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST R/O AYANOOR KOTE SHIVAMOGGA TALUK - 577 202 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. .. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.G.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO COMMANDING THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE LAND MEASURING 3 ACRES 21 GUNTAS OF SHEDDIKOPPA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK COMPRISED IN NEW SY.NO.114(OLD SY.NO.101/3) PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF

¶17

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED 02.12.2013 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has sought for a mandamus to the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga SubDivision (the third respondent) to restore the land measuring 3 acres 21 guntas in Sy.No.114 of Sheddikoppa village, Shivamogga Taluk consequent to the Deputy Commissioner’s Order dated 02.12.2013 in No.SC/ST.30/2009-10 (old proceeding No.SC/ST.4/2001-02).

¶22

The petitioner has succeeded in her application under Section 5-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 with the Deputy Commissioner, in the subsequent proceedings, directing restoration of the subject land in favour of the petitioner. However, this Court in W.P.No.24870/2004 (SC/ST), which is disposed of on

¶23

¶24

20^th November 2008, has restored the proceedings for re-consideration. After this order, the Deputy Commissioner has once again directed the Assistant Commissioner to restore the subject land to the legal heirs of the original grantee.

¶25

The petitioner's case is that, notwithstanding the restoration, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner has not taken any action. If there is such order, it must be given effect to but after ensuring that such order is not called in question further by the concerned. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent - the Assistant Commissioner - to take appropriate measures in accordance with law consequent to the directions issued on 02.12.2013 in No.SC/ST.30/2009-10 (old proceedings No.SC/ST.4/2001-02) but after ascertaining that such order is not called in question.

¶26

¶27

The petitioner shall be informed of such decision within a period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner for necessary compliance shall ensure that a certified copy of this order is filed with the third respondent within 2 [two] weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

KNM/-

Lakshmamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmamma 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

Caterpillar Financial Services India Private Limited Vs M/S Sudhir Constructions

Sri Venkatesh Vs Smt Kusuma Balaji

Macawber Beekay Private Limited Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited

Tumakuru Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Vijay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Vijay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka