Dismissed

Chowdappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2022WP/3546/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged inaction regarding a 1993 application for regularization of land occupation. The court directed the Tahsildar to ensure the application was placed before the Committee or issue an endorsement, mandating a three-month timeline for consideration with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the Tahsildar to place the 1993 regularization application before the Committee within three months, offering an opportunity of hearing, or issue an endorsement if the application i

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 3546 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3546 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

CHOWDAPPA, S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT UPPARUPALYA, PURAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101.

¶11

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDINGS, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE TAHASILDAR, MADHUGIRI TALUK, MADHUGIRI – 572 132.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

WP No. 3546 of 2019

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDETNS TO CONSIDER HIS APPLICATION FOR REGULARIZATION OF HIS CULTIVATION TO THE EXTENT OF 3.29 ACRES IN SY.NO.322 OF KAMSENAHALLY, KODIGENAHALLY HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, AND APPROPRIATE ORDERS.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶24

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for both the respondents.

¶25

The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner in the year 1993 seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of 3 acres and 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.322 of Kamsenahally, Kodigenahally Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkuru District.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 3546 of 2019

¶28

It is the contention of the petitioner that he

¶29

filed an application in Form No.52 way back in the year 1993 and till date no orders are passed on the application filed by the petitioner.

¶30

Having regard to the contentions of the petitioner and the prayer made in the writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tahsildar, Madugiri Taluk, is required to ensure that the application filed by the petitioner is placed before the Committee for regularization of unauthorized occupation. If no such application is found, then the Tahsildar is required to issue an endorsement to the petitioner. However, if it is true that the application filed by the petitioner is found in the records, then the Tahsildar shall immediately place the same before the Committee and the Committee shall consider the application by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cause inspection and thereafter, pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as

¶31

¶32

WP No. 3546 of 2019

¶33

possible and at any rate within a period of three months

¶34

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

Ordered accordingly.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Chowdappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chowdappa 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thimmarayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

A S Nagaraju Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shivarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

G.R. Eashwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Ibrahim Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sandeep Puri Vs State of Karnataka