Dismissed

Hebri Milk Producers Cooperative v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2022WP/43530/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Co-operative Society challenged an order by the Deputy Commissioner rejecting a claim for land grant on the ground that the land was State Reserved Forest. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the claim had no merit as the land was designated as reserved forest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and costs were made easy.

Hebri Milk Producers Cooperative Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.43530 OF 2015 (KLR - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

HEBRI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (R), HEBRI, REG. NO.3631, “KESHEERAVARIDHI”, HEBRI POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY GOVINDA NAIKA, 39 YEARS, S/O ANNU NAIKA, R/AT CHARA VILLAGE.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI -576 101.

¶13

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶15

TAHASILDAR, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE - A); QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-4 (ANNEXURE - R); GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE - A).

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-Co-operative Society seeks to lay a challenge to the endorsement dated 03.08.2015 issued by

¶22

the respondent-Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-A which

¶23

reads as under:

¶24

"¸ÀA.J¯ï.J£ï.r.¦rDgï.¹.Dgï.81/2015-16/93307 ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.08.2015 vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ PÁPÀð¼À vÁ®ÆPÀÄ PÁPÀð¼À – EªÀjUÉ

¶25

¶26

«µÀAiÀÄ: PÁPÀð¼À vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ºÉ©æ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À£ÀA.173/1 gÀ°è 5.36 JPÉæ ¸ÀgÀPÁj d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ºÉ©æ ºÁ®Ä GvÁàzÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ (j) ºÉ©æ EªÀjUÉ 5 ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ UÉÃtÂ £É¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ §UÉÎ.

¶27

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð ºÁ®Ä GvÁàzÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁgÀ ¸ÀA¥sÀ(j) ºÉ©æ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«

¶28

vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀÄ PÁPÀð¼À EªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É¸ÀA.J¯ï.J£ï.r(1)¦rDgï. 64/2013-14 ¢£ÁAPÀ:08.06.2015.

¶29

-000-

¶30

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, PÁPÀð¼À vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ºÉ©æ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À£ÀA.173/1 gÀ°è 5.36 JPÉæ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ºÀ¹gÀÄ ºÀÄ®Äè ¨É¼É¸ÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÉÌ 5 ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ UÉÃtÂ £É¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉ©æ ºÁ®Ä GvÁàzÀPÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀPÁj ¸ÀAWÀ(j) ºÉ©æ EªÀjUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj G¯ÉèÃR(1)gÀ°è ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀAvÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, °Ã¹UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ«vÀ ºÉ©æ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.173 gÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂ, CqÀAUÀ¯ï, DPÁgï §Azï £À°è d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆgÀA¨ÉÆÃPÀÄ, ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀ PÁqÀÄ JA§ÄzÁV zÁR°¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É £ÀA.Dgï r 49 J¯ï f¦ 2011 ¢£ÁAPÀ 01.03.2011 gÀAvÉ CwÃ CªÀ±ÀåPÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀUÀ¼À ºÉÆgÀvÀÄ ¥Àr¹ EvÀgÉÃ GzÉÝÃ±ÀUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwUÉ CªÀPÁ±À«®è, EzÉÃ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹zÀAvÉ F »AzÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA Dgï r 98/J¯ï fJ 2003 ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.02.2005 gÀAvÉ UÉÃtÂ £É¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÉÆÃjzÀ ºÉ©æ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.173 gÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂ PÀ®A 11 gÀ°è ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀ PÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ EAvÀºÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAWÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. CzÀÝjAzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F PÀÆqÀ »AzÀÄgÀÄV¹zÉ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ w½¹zÉ.

¶31

(PÀ.r.f¯Áè¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀjAzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢¸À®ànÖzÉ)

¶32

2. The effect of above endorsement is that the

¶33

claim of the petitioner-Society for the grant of subject land

¶34

¶35

on lease basis cannot be entertained inasmuch as, it is State Reserved Forest Land. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that in the earlier two reports, the claim for grant was recommended and all of the sudden Deputy Commissioner having turned around now rejected the claim for grant, there being no reason for such a voltaface. He also referred to the provisions of Section 68 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. So contending, he seeks grant of prayer in the writ petition.

¶36

Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents vehemently opposes the petition with equal vehemence contending that once the land is designated as the reserved forest land, nobody can touch, let alone grant it in the light of Apex Court decision in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267. He also contends that the notification of the Government which the petitioner heavily banks upon the unaccomplished one under Section 68 and therefore, the same cannot be

¶37

¶38

pressed into service in support of claim in the petition. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶40

and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned AGA. Learned AGA is also justified in pointing to the revenue entries in the Record of Rights which show subject land as of the Forest Department. The revenue entries carry presumptive value under section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in the absence of any rebuttal material placed on record. After all the grant of land cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

¶41

The impugned order animated with logic which is discussed in the immediate preceding paragraph and regardless of the arguable infirmities therein, it has brought about a just result that otherwise accords with the law and therefore, cannot be voided. The contention that

¶42

¶43

similar land has been granted to other persons, makes no difference since if such a grant is made, it is a legal wrong from which no right would emerge.

¶44

In the above circumstances, writ petition being devoid

¶45

of merits is dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Hebri Milk Producers Cooperative v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hebri Milk Producers Cooperative 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Lalji Karsan Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kenchegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Nagaraju.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B S Srinivas Vs Assistant Commissioner

Poojappa Vs State of Karnataka