Disposed

Poojappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2022WP/8026/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought Writ jurisdiction to regularise their occupation and obtain hakku patras for public land. Court intervened, allowing six months for respondents to consider representations and protecting petitioners from interference pending outcome.

What did the court decide?

Six months period prescribed for considering petitioners' representations; occupation shall not be interfered with during this period.

Poojappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8026/2021 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . POOJAPPA S/O APPANNA

¶9

AGE ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶10

2 . SUNITHA W/O SUDHARSHAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶11

3 . S K SWAMY S/O KEMPAYYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶12

4 . N BHAGYA N W/O KISHORE KUMAR G S AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶13

5 . JAYAMMA W/O SRIRAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶14

6 . P NAGARAJ S/O PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶15

7 . G P KEERTHI S/O G K PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶16

¶17

8 . G P KRISHNAVENI S/O G K PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶18

9 . LAKSHMIPATHI G K S/O G M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶19

10 . M MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶20

11 . DEEVARAJ N S/O G NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶21

12 . M ANANTHARAMAIAH S/O MUNIVEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶22

13 . VANAJA SHASHI W/O VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶23

14 . LOKESH S S/O SRINIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶24

15 . SUBRAMANI S S/O SRINIVAS N AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶25

16 . K SUBRAMANI S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶26

17 . SUBRAMANI N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶27

¶28

18 . S KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶29

19 . INDRAMMA W/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶30

20 . MUNIRAJU B S/O BEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶31

21 . RUKMINI S W/O MUNIKRISHNA N AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶32

22 . PADMA G W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶33

23 . SHOBHA S W/O NANJUNDAPPA V M AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶34

24 . MUNIYAPPA M S/O MUNINAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶35

25 . G K NATARAJ LATE G M KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶36

26 . KIRAN KUMAR G N S/O NATARAJA G K AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶37

27 . SRIKANTH G N S/O NATARAJ G K AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶38

¶39

28 . J RAJU S/O JAYARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶40

29 . M SUREKHA W/O L SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶41

30 . KALAMMA W/O ESWARA CHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶42

31 . R NANJAPPA S/O RAMALINGA CHARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶43

32 . UMADEVI M N W/O LATE ESWARACHARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶44

33 . SIDDAMMA W/O MUNIYAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶45

34 . SUBRAMANI C S/O CHINNAPPA AGEF ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶46

35 . KUMAR N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

¶47

36 . MANJUNATH N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶48

37 . G KESHAVA MURTHY S/O JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶49

¶50

38 . M PURUSHOTHAM S/O M MUNIPHILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶51

39 . MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

¶52

40 . JAYARAM K N S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

¶53

41 . MUNISWAMYREDDY S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

¶54

42 . MANJUNATH REDDY S/O MUNISWAMYREDDY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶55

43 . RATHNAMMA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶56

44 . EERACHIKKEGOWDA K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶57

45 . RUPADEVI W/O K SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

¶58

46 . VENUGOPAL S/ O LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶59

47 . R MANJUNATH S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶60

¶61

48 . AKILESH S/O ANANTHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶62

49 . ABISHEK S/O ANANTHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶63

50 . R MOHAN S/O RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶64

51 . RAVI S/O P RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶65

52 . VARUNYOGA SUHAS B R S/O P RAMANJANEYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶66

53 . YASHODAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶67

54 . R ARUN S/O RAMANJENEYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶68

55 . PADMA W/O S K SWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶69

56 . KRISHNAREDDY S/O CHINNAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS

¶70

57 . KRISHNAPPA S S/O LATE SUBBANNA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶71

¶72

58 . ASHWATH S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶73

59 . ANANDREDDY S/O ANNAYYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶74

60 . G K PRAKASH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶75

61 . G VENKATESH S/O LATE GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶76

ALL ARE RESIDING AT PROPERTY No.82 NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE GARUDACHARAPALYA MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU - 560 048.

¶77

…PETITIONERS

¶78

(BY SRI VENKATESH K FOR SRI S S ZULAPI, ADVOCATE)

¶79

AND:

¶80

1 .STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶81

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶82

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

¶83

¶84

BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶85

4 . THE TAHSILDAR K R PURAM TALUK OFFICE K R PURAM BENGALURU - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS

¶86

(BY SRI C N MAHADESHWARAN, AGA)

¶87

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE HAKKUPATHRA AND REGULARISE THE PETITIONERS CONSTRUCTED DWELLING HOUSE IN SY.No.82 MEASURING 3 ACRE 33 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT GARUDACHARAPALY VILLAGE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-48 AND ETC.,

¶88

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

¶89

ORDER

¶90

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise their occupation of the subject property and to issue hakku patras.

¶91

Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that his

¶92

clients have occupied various pieces of the land in question and have put up constructions years ago; there is water

¶93

¶94

supply & power connection; they have Voters ID cards and Aadhar Cards reflecting the very same address; all of them belong to the lower economic strata and they are in a settled possession having put up constructions since decades and therefore their claim for regularisation ought

¶95

to be considered and till such consideration takes place they should not be interfered with.

¶96

Learned AGA appearing for the respondents

¶97

opposes the petition contending that the writ jurisdiction is not meant for invocation by the persons who have unauthorisedly occupied public property and therefore petition should be rejected. Having so contended, now he fairly agrees to instruct his clients to look into the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and in a time bound way. This is fair enough.

¶98

¶99

In the above circumstances, the petition is disposed

¶100

off prescribing a period of six months for considering the petitioners’ representations and also informing the result of such consideration to all of them. All contentions are kept open. Till such consideration takes place, the occupation of the petitioners shall not be interfered with.

¶101

It is open to the answering respondents to solicit from the petitioner any documents or information as is required for due consideration of subject representation. However, in that guise, delay shall not be brooked.

¶102

No costs.

¶103

Sd/JUDGE

¶104

LRS

Poojappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poojappa 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.Lalji Karsan Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kenchegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Gangaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Nagaraju.C Vs the State of Karnataka

Hebri Milk Producers Cooperative Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B S Srinivas Vs Assistant Commissioner