Dismissed

L. Nagaraju v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/7570/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227. The petitioner sought mandamus to direct respondents to constitute a committee and regularize his land occupation. The court held that due to a prior finding by a coordinate bench, the land cannot be regularized as it lies within the prohibited radius under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

What the court decided

AI extract

L. Nagaraju Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION No.7570/2016(KLR -RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

L NAGARAJU S/O LATE LAXMAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT HUCCHANNA COMPOUND BEHIND DILEX TAILOR SHOP KUNIGAL ROAD, BANASHANKARI TUMKUR - 572 103.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MANHOHAR B K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE TAHSILDAR TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶12

THE COMMITTEE REGULARIZATION FOR UNAUTHORISED CULTIVATION, TUMKUR.

¶13

RESPONDENT NO.2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.11.2016.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI V SESHU, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 12.08.1978 BY CONSTITUTING THE COMMITTEE WHICH HAS TO BE FORMED AS PER THE ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL No. 734/1989 BY THE KAT, BENGALURU & FOR THE EFFECTIVE ADJUDICATION IN THE ABOVE MATTER.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner knocking at doors of Writ Court seeking

¶21

a Writ of Mandamus to direct compliance with the order dated 11.06.1993 passed in Writ Appeal No.734 of 1989 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, copy of said order avails at (Annexure-C).

¶22

Learned HCGP appearing for the official

¶23

Respondents submits that the petitioner was also before this Court in W.P.No.18362/2017 wherein paragraph No.3 records the undertaking of the official respondents to place the claim of Petitioner before the Regularization Committee.

¶24

He also notifies to the Court that another case in W.P.No.4750 of 2018 (KLR-REG) filed by the petitioner

¶25

¶26

came to be disposed off vide order dated 21.11.2019 made

¶27

by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.4, the

¶28

learned Judge has recorded a finding as under:

¶29

"4. Learned AGA submitted that in view of Section 94-A(4) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, a land in unauthorised occupation cannot be regularised if it is within 5 kms. from City Municipality. In view of undisputed facts, no exception can be taken to the impugned endorsement."

¶30

Therefore, the learned HCGP submits that the question of implementation of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal’s order would not arise.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶32

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission of learned HCGP,

¶33

that in terms of the finding recorded by the Co-ordinate

¶34

Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4750 of 2018 (KLR-REG), the question of regularizing the occupancy of the subject land would not arise since the said land is situate within the

¶35

¶36

prohibited radius, under Section 94-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶37

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶38

Cost made easy.

¶39

Sd/- JUDGE

¶40

L. Nagaraju v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

L. Nagaraju v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Bhaskar Vs the Special Land Tribunal

Smt.Meenakshi Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri Muthurayappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Special Deputy Commissioner

Sri K R Rajesh Vs the Deputy Commisioner

Tholisamma Vs State of Karnataka