Disposed

Sri Ronald Pereira v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2022WP/44626/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an order regarding land entries under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The court directed respondents to make entries per a 2022 order, disregarding an earlier impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to make entries in terms of the order dated 23.02.2022 within three months.

Sri Ronald Pereira Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.44626 OF 2016 (KLR – RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RONALD PEREIRA, S/O MARTIN PEREIRA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A 1202, FELICITY-2, BEJAI NEW ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE – 575 004. D.K. DISTRICT.

¶8

REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.TERESA R PEREIRA, W/O SRI. RONALD PEREIRA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A 1202, FELICITY-2, BEJAI NEW ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE – 575 004, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI,

RAJATHADRI,

MANIPAL – 576 104.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KUNDAPURA SUB – DIVISION, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 201.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 101.

¶18

MOHANDAS PAI, S/O LATE NARASIMHA PAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶19

KASTURI R NAYAK, D/O LATE NARASIMHA PAI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶20

GEETHA P NAYAK, D/O LATE NARASIMHA PAI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE ALL R/A NO.182/2, MAYMYO, ANNA NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI – 600 102.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.V.SESHU, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM R-1 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 27.05.2016 MADE IN NO.CDIS:RAP:112/2015-16 PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE - A; QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE - A DATED 27.05.2016 MADE IN CDIS:RAP:112/2015-16 PASSED BY R-1 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY CONFIRMING

¶24

¶25

THE ORDER ANNEXURE - B DATED 25.02.2016 PASSED BY R-2. AND ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The essential grievance of the Petitioner even after some development taken place pendente lite is as to making of entries in terms of order dated 25.02.2016 made by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 in terms of his application in Form 7A. Learned counsel for the Petitioner with leave of the Court has produced a copy of Form 7A order dated 23.02.2022 (Annexure-F).

¶29

Learned HCGP on request appearing for the official Respondents although initially opposed the petition now agrees to instruct his clients to make entries in terms of the order dated 23.02.2022 since it is made under Section 77A of the 1961 Act which provides for grant of

¶30

¶31

land as contradistinguished from grant of occupancy under section 48A of the said Act. This is appreciable.

¶32

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off. Time for making entries in terms of the said order is three months, disregarding the impugned order dated 25.02.2016 at Annexure-B which pales into insignificance in view of the 7A order.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Sri Ronald Pereira v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ronald Pereira v. the Deputy Commissioner

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. Munivenkatappa Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Smt Narasamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Earaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Munivenkatareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C R Karthik Vs Assistant Commissioner

Smt. Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka