Allowed

C Ankanna Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2022WP/63484/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the order declaring subject properties as excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, as proceedings abated due to lack of lawful possession under the Repealing Act, 1999, following the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 directed to delete Government name in revenue records for the subject properties and mutate the petitioner's name within four weeks.

C Ankanna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.63484/2016 (ULC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

C.ANKANNA REDDY S/O LATE CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O OLD CHENNASANDRA ROAD DODDABANASAWADI VILLAGE K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU – 560 043 ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI VENUGOPAL M S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE -560 001

¶12

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE CITY DISTRICT BANGALORE -560 009

¶13

THE THASILDAR

¶14

BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 043 ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 01.10.1992 BY R-2 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ACTIONS AS THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN ABATED IN VIEW OF THE URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) REPEAL ACT 1999 AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This writ petition is filed for directing the respondent

¶21

No.3 to delete the name of the State in the records of rights pertaining to the subject properties on the ground that the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ( for short ‘the Act) stand abated for not having taken lawful possession of the subject properties which were declared as excess lands as specified under the Repealing Act.

¶22

Heard the counsel for the parties.

¶23

The subject properties were declared as excess

¶24

lands by order dated 01.10.1992 passed by the then

¶25

¶26

Competent Authority under Section 10(3) of the Act. In pursuance of the order passed by the then Competent Authority, the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject properties.

¶27

The Act was repealed by Repealing Act, 1999 and under section 4 of the Repeal Act, the proceeding/order passed under section 10(3) of the repealed Act stands abated if lawful possession was not taken.

¶28

The petitioner’s grievance is that though the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Act has abated, as specified under Section 3 of the Repealing Act, since lawful possession was not taken, the Revenue Authorities have not deleted the name of the Government in the revenue records in respect of the subject properties.

¶29

A perusal of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the State indicates that the then Competent Authority under the provision of the Repealed Act has not

¶30

¶31

taken lawful possession of the subject property as prescribed under Section 10(5) of the Repeal Act.

¶32

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hari Ram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280 at para 42 held as follows:

¶33

“42. The mere vesting of the land under subsection (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18.3.1999. State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. On failure to establish any of those situations, the land owner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act.

¶34

In view of dictum of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, it is held that the then Competent

¶35

¶36

Authority has not taken possession of the subject properties as prescribed under sub-section 5 or subsection 6 of section 10 of the Repeal Act, and it also held that the State of Karnataka does not have defacto possession of the subject properties and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section 4 of the Repealing Act.

¶37

The order passed by the then Competent Authority declaring the subject properties excess land under Section 10(3) of the Repealed Act stand abated. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

Respondent No.3 is hereby directed to delete the name of the Government in the records of rights pertaining to Sy.No.118 measuring 2 acres situated in K.R.Puram Village and Sy.No.23/1 measuring 0.01.08 guntas and Sy.No.22/3 measuring 0.01.00 gunta both situated at

¶41

¶42

Banasawadi village and to mutate the name of the petitioner in the Revenue records concerned within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

PKN

C Ankanna Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Ankanna Reddy 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

Papegowda Vs State of Karnataka

Papegowda G.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. P. S. Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Xxxxxx (Letter Dated 16.03.2024) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anant G N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rekha.R.Nayak Vs the Regional Transport Authority