Disposed

Mohammad Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022WP/8321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's claim for schedule property regularization. The court observed the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and disposed of the petition reserving liberty to approach the appellate authority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to lay a challenge to impugned orders in appeal.

Mohammad Sab Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.8321 OF 2022(KLR-LG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED SAB, S/O LATE IMAM SAB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT BHOOTHANAHATTI, (CHALAMADU) VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 141.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MURTHY K, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE LAND GRAND COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED, UNDER KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 141.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 141.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 141.

¶15

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 141.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.R SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L THE RESOLUTION DATED 27.07.1996 BOTH PASSED BY THE R2 IN SO FAR AS REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO GRANT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner challenge is as to unfavourable

¶23

consideration of claim for regularization of the subject land. Apparently, the authorities have said that there is no evidence to vouch acclaimed cultivation, be it authorized or unauthorized.

¶24

Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents

¶25

opposes the Petition on the ground of alternate & equally efficacious remedy namely the appeal as provided under Rule 108(D)(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. He also submits that in similar matters, the Court

¶26

¶27

has relegated the litigants to alternate remedy and there being no special circumstances, a different approach cannot be justifiably taken. There is force in this submission.

¶28

In view of the above, the Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Petitioner to lay a challenge to both the impugned orders in appeal as suggested above.

¶29

No opinion is expressed on merits or as to the condonability of the delay if brooked in approaching the appellate authority.

¶30

All contentions are kept open, costs having been

¶31

made easy.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Bsv

Mohammad Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sab v. the 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. Siddaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Ramakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Eshwarappa G Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Gangamma Vs State of Karnataka

Muniyamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

M/S Affinity Real Estate Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner