Dismissed

Sri.B.Narayana Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2022WP/43102/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking issuance of a Saguvali Chit based on a Land Grant Committee resolution which the Court found had been legally rescinded by the Assistant Commissioner due to proximity to the BBMP periphery and procedural irregularities.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed with costs having been made easy.

Sri.B.Narayana Gowda Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.43102 OF 2016(KLR-LG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.B.NARAYANA GOWDA, S/O LATE BYREGOWDAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALYA VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALA POST, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.N R NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISIONA, DODDABALLAPURA 561 201.

¶14

THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561 201.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 561 201.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-4 TO IMPLEMENT THE DECISION DATED 04.10.2007 PASSED BY THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE AT ANNEX-D AND DIRECT R-4 TO ISSUE SAGUVALI CHIT IN RESPECT OF 4 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.NO.4, SITUATED AT PALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK;

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeing a direction for issuance of the Saguvali Chit in terms of Resolution dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Respondent – Regularization Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Resolution in question operates as a Title Deed and therefore, there should be consequent issuance of Saguvali Chit in terms thereof in favour of his client. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for not issuing the one, says the counsel.

¶23

Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that the Resolution of the Committee on which the petition is founded, is itself rescinded by the Assistant

¶24

¶25

Commissioner vide order dated 25.08.2012 and

¶26

therefore, petition has to fail.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶28

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the Resolution of the Committee is rescinded by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of Rule 108-K of the Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Learned AGA is right in saying that this has been done inasmuch as, the land in question is situate within the specified/specific distance of 18KMs from the periphery of BBMP and therefore, Grant/Regularization is impermissible. He also rightly points out several irregularities that have infected the Resolution of the Committee.

¶29

In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Bsv

Sri.B.Narayana Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.B.Narayana Gowda 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 M N Sathyanarayan Vs the Secretary

Smt.Rajalakshmi Vs the Chairman

Smt Sakamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri C Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Jamia Masjid Sunni (Wakf) Yelahanka Vs the Land Tribunal North (Addl)

Manjunath K.M. Vs the State of Karnataka