Disposed

V Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2022WP/6674/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition filed challenging the inaction of the Tahsildar in conducting a survey to identify land boundaries and permit development sanctioned by the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to immediately conduct a survey, identify boundaries of the petitioners' land, and permit development activity within four weeks.

V Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 6674 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6674 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

V NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS SRI LAKSHMI NIVASA CHAMUNDESHWARI BADAVANE WARD NO.06, RAMANAGARA-562159

¶9

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

R V SURESH S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 27TH WARD, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR RAMANAGARA-562159

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY S.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

¶16

¶17

WP No. 6674 of 2022

¶18

COMMISSIONER SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT STATE OF KARNATAKA K R CIRCLE BANGALORE-560001

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS RAMANAGARA AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

¶20

THASILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

¶21

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LAND RECORDS RAMANAGARA, MINI VIDANASOUDHA RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

¶22

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA, POLICE BHAVAN RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562159

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAIN TO ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 04.06.2011; DIRECT THE R4 TO R6 TO CONDUCT THE SURVEY AS PER ANNEXURE-F DATED 23.12.2021 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE R6 AND AS PER ANNEXURE-G DATED 09.02.2022 GIVEN TO THE TAHSILDAR BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 6674 of 2022

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶31

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

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners got the land in question converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 04.06.2011 and after having obtained sanction of the layout plan at the hands of

¶33

the Ramanagara-Channapatna Urban Development Authority and proceeded to form the layout, there were objections raised at the hands of the respondentTahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, stating that the petitioners are encroaching upon the adjacent government land. Therefore, the petitioners gave a representation dated 09.02.2022 at Annexure-G to the Tahsildar stating that they may survey the property and identify the 8 acres and

¶34

¶35

WP No. 6674 of 2022

¶36

20 guntas of land belonging to the petitioners and permit the petitioners to carry on the development of the layout in terms of the plan sanctioned by the competent authority. Nevertheless, in spite of the said representation given by the petitioners, the Tahsildar has not taken any action and on the contrary, the petitioners are not permitted to carry out the development activity.

¶37

There is substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If the respondentTahsildar, Ramanagara Taluk, is of the opinion that the petitioners are trying to use of or encroach upon the government land in the guise of developing their lands, then the Tahsildar should have conducted a survey identified the land belonging to the petitioners and permitted them to carry out the development activity only within the confines of the lands belonging to the petitioners. Instead of carrying out the survey, the respondent-Tahsildar is causing inconvenience to the petitioners by stalling the development activity.

¶38

¶39

WP No. 6674 of 2022

¶40

Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed

¶41

of with a specific direction to the respondent No.5Tahsildar, Ramanagara, Taluk, to immediately conduct a survey and identify the boundaries in respect of 8 acres and 20 guntas of land in terms of the order of conversion dated 04.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and permit the petitioners to carry on the development activity within the confines of the said land belonging to the petitioners. The survey shall be carried out and the boundaries of the land belonging to the petitioners for which a layout plan is also sanctioned shall be identified and the petitioners shall be permitted to carry on the development activity, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Ordered accordingly.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

V Narasimhaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Narasimhaiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.R. Eashwarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Ibrahim Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sandeep Puri Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M K Munikrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Veerabhadrachari Vs the State of Karnataka

Abhimanyu Mani P Vs the State of Karnataka