Disposed

Halappa v. the Duputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2022WP/37015/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench disposed of writ petitions seeking to quash an endorsement regarding land. Court treated matter similar to a precedent, treating petitioners as similarly circumstanced. Court invited petitioners to submit a representation to remove the impugned phodi under relevant Land Revenue Act provisions within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; liberty reserved to petitioners to file representation within four weeks to remove phodi.

Halappa Vs the Duputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.37015 OF 2016 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HALAPPA, S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶9

SIDDEGOWDA, S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶10

CHANDREGOWDA, S/O LATE LAKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶11

ALL ARE R/O DHANTARAMAKKI, JYOTHINAGARA POST-577 102, CHICKMAGALURU TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶12

NOTE: AS AGE PROOF OF PETITIONER NO.2 NOT AVAILABLE, SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.JAGADEESH D C, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DUPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGLURU DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALRUU-577101.

¶17

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, REVENUE SUB-DIVISION, CHICKMAGALURU-577 101.

¶18

¶19

THE TAHSILDAR, CHICKMAGALRUU TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU-577 101.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD.4.6.2015 VIDE ANNEX-E ISSUED BY THE R- 1 AS THE SAME IS ILELGAL AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The subject matter of this writ petition is

¶26

substantially similar to the one in W.P.No.49249/2016

¶27

between SRI S.GANGAIAH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS disposed off by this Court vide order dated 08.11.2022 granting some reprieve to the litigant therein.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Petitioners banking upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.Nos.932933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, disposed of on 11.12.1974, submits that his client also being similarly circumstanced, has to be granted the same

¶29

¶30

relief there being no repugnant circumstances that militates against the same.

¶31

Learned AGA submits that if the petitioners gives

¶32

a representation to remove the phodi, an appropriate decision would be taken in the Scheme of Sec.163 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 r/w Rule 119 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, provided that petitioners furnish all necessary information and documents, regardless of the impugned endorsement. This is absolutely fair.

¶33

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the petitioners to give representation within four weeks as indicated above and if one is made, the official respondents shall take a call on that, within an outer limit of three months.

¶34

It is open for the answering respondents to solicit any information/documents from the side of the petitioners as are required for due consideration of the representation in

¶35

¶36

contemplation and in the guise of such solicitation delay shall not be brooked.

¶37

Costs made easy.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Snb/

Halappa v. the Duputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halappa v. the Duputy 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

Purushotham Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mr. Udayshankar Shenoy Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S Jagadeesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Sannathippaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Rasolasab Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramalingeshwara Mutt Vs the State of Karnataka