Disposed

Sri. Omkarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Aug 2022WP/4608/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court of Karnataka directed the Deputy Commissioner to treat the petitioner's claim as a requisition, verify records, and pass necessary orders regarding the grant of land within two months, while considering potential protected area status. The Supreme Oriented judgment directed the authorities to issue an endorsement if the land is not prot

What did the court decide?

Directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case as a requisition, verify records, and pass necessary orders within two months; if land is protected, secure forest department information and issu

Sri. Omkarappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 4608 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 4608 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. OMKARAPPA S/O. LATE. MUDLAPPA, R/AT VAKKALAGERE VILLAGE, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKMAGALUR DISTRICT 577180

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI

¶11

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. A M MAHESHWARAPPA., ADVOCATE)(PH)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MS BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALUR 577101

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB DIVISION, TARIKERE 577228, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,

¶18

THA TAHASILDAR KADUR TALUK,

¶19

¶20

WP No. 4608 of 2022

¶21

KADUR 577548, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA)(PH)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CNSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DTD.21.10.2021 AND 22.10.2021 PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREH, H1 AND H2 RESPECTIVELY TO THE WRIT PETITION; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE GRANT CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER OF LAND BEARING SY NO.279 OF VAKKALAGERE VILLAGE, YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TALUK AS PER THE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶28

The learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for all the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court laying his claim for grant of 5 acres of land in Sy.No.279 of Vakkalagere Village, Yagati Hobli, Kadur Taluk. on the basis of an order said to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner

¶30

¶31

WP No. 4608 of 2022

¶32

somewhere in the year 1959-60 in revision appeal No.15/1959-60 filed by the grand father of the petitioner.

¶33

It is the contention of the petitioner that

¶34

although the Deputy Commissioner ordered the grant of 5 acres of land in the surrendered area of the Vakkalagere, Amruthmahal at a reasonable upset price, nevertheless, the upset price was not fixed and there was no occasion for Sri.Hanumathappa or his son Mudlappa to pay the upset price and get the saguvalli chit issued by the competent authority. Nevertheless, during the year 1978, Sri.Hanumanthappa made a written request to the Tahsildar, Kadur Taluk, as found at Annexure-E to secure the records, fix the upset price as was directed by the Deputy Commissioner, and issue a grant certificate. This was followed by another requisition made on 27.08.1979. Further, it is contended that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamangaluru, made a communication dated 10.11.2021 at Annexure-J to the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division, and the Tahsildar,

¶35

¶36

WP No. 4608 of 2022

¶37

Kadur Taluk, directing them to look into the grievance of the petitioner and take necessary steps. It is contended that no action has been taken by the Tahsildar or the Assistant Commissioner and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations dated 21.10.2021 and 22.10.2021 at Annexure-H, H1 and H2 respectively.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶39

submits that according to this information, there are directions given by this Court and more particularly by the Hon’ble Division Bench in a public interest litigation directing that no part of the Amruthkaval area should be granted to any individual person. Nevertheless, it is further submitted that the entire Amruthkaval area has been declared as a conservative reserve under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the authorities are required to consider the representation

¶40

¶41

WP No. 4608 of 2022

¶42

given by the petitioner and issue necessary endorsement in this regard.

¶43

Having regard to the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate and considering the contentions of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-authorities, Kadur Taluk and the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere Sub Division, were required to consider the communication dated 10.11.2021, said to have been made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamangaluru District, and pass necessary orders or they should have issued an endorsement to the petitioner. However, since the learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the land situated within the Amruthmahal kaval are protected area and cannot be alienated, this Court would direct the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Chikkkamangaluru District to consider this writ petition as a requisition made by the petitioner.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 4608 of 2022

¶46

The Deputy Commissioner shall consider the case of the petitioner, verify the records and, thereafter, pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

If the Deputy Commissioner is of the opinion that the lands in question form part of the protected area, then necessary information shall also be secured at the hands of the officials of the forest department and thereafter, issue an endorsement to the petitioner. If the land does not form part of the protected area and is available for grant, then the Deputy Commissioner may take note of the orders said to have been passed by the then Deputy Commissioner in revision appeal No.59/1959-60 and pass necessary orders.

¶48

Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri. Omkarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Omkarappa v. the 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 Abdul Quadar Mukka Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagamma Vs the Secretary

Sri.v.Basavaraj Wodiyar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. B. v. Rajashekara Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Sathish Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Haseena Begum Vs the Assistant Commissioner