Partly allowed

B M Renuka Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022WP/7733/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged non-consideration of land regularization claims. The court declined indulgence for the first petitioner due to holding exceeding statutory ceiling limits. It inclined to consider claims of the second and third petitioners subject to eligibility and absence from the Regularization Committee, permitting Deputy Commissioner to consider competing categories.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with observations; claims of 2nd and 3rd petitioners to be considered subject to eligibility; 1st petitioner's claim denied due to ceiling violation.

B M Renuka Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.7733 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . B M RENUKA PRASAD, S/O LATE B C MALLANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶9

2 . B C RAJANNA, S/O LATE BYRAPPA @ CHIKKA BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,

¶10

3 . B C PARAMASHIVAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKANNAIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶11

ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS, RESIDENTS OF BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562157.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶16

2 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, VISHWANATHAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.

¶17

¶18

3 . COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY AND TAHASILDAR, YALAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 560064.

¶19

4 . TAHSILDAR, YALAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 560064.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDING OF THE CASE THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a direction for consideration of their individual claims for regularization of the unauthorized occupancy in the subject government lands. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues drawing attention of the court to the extent of his clients land holding individually and therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus to consider the pending claims in respect of which orders have been reserved

¶26

¶27

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents with equal vehemence oppose the petition contending that under the scheme of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, the grant or regularization of unauthorized occupancy is meant for weaker sections and small holders and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief at the hands of this court. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence so far as the 2^nd & 3^rd petitioners i.e., B.C.Rajanna and B.C.Paramashivaiah respectively and declines indulgence in respect of the 1^st petitioner Mr.B.M.Renuka Prasad for the following reasons:

¶29

(a) The 1^st petitioner is shown to have 5 Acres 39

¶30

Guntas of land and therefore, his claim for regularization of 32 guntas of land cannot be favoured in the teeth of ceiling limit prescribed by first proviso to sub-section (4) of section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The said Proviso states that the holding of the land including the land

¶31

¶32

in respect of which claim is made for regularization or grant shall not exceed two hectares which is equivalent to 4 Acres 38 Guntas. Simple & rudimentary arithmetic demonstrably shows that the 1^st petitioner owns 5 Acres 39 Guntas and if 32 Guntas in respect of which regularization is sought for, are added, his land holding would far exceed the statutory limit.

¶33

(b) In respect of the 2^nd petitioner Mr.B.C.Rajanna,

¶34

he is shown to possess 3 Acres 35 Guntas and therefore, his claim for regularization to the extent of 1 Acre 13 Guntas may be considered if he is otherwise eligible. Similarly, the claim of 3^rd petitioner Mr.B.C.Paramashivaiah for regularizing 36 guntas of land also may be considered after ascertaining his land holding. However, claim shall not be allowed, if he happens to be a sitting member of the Regularization Committee. The Deputy Commissioner who works in substitution of the Committee shall keep in view the lands to be granted for several other categories of persons including the ex-servicemen while considering the claim of the two petitioners above.

¶35

¶36

In the above circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed

¶37

off with the above observations, all contentions are kept

open.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

cbc

B M Renuka Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B M Renuka Prasad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Basavarajappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

A Veeregowda Vs the Land Tribunal

Sri.Hanumanthaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Doomakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H v Ramaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Venkatalakshmamma Vs the Principal Secretary