Dismissed

Sri.v.Basavaraj Wodiyar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2022WP/9914/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order upholding a grant of another party. The court held there was no infirmity in lower orders directing a survey to verify land overlapping. It mandated the Tahsildar to conduct a joint survey within three months.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar, Malur Taluk to conduct a joint survey in the presence of both parties within three months. Report to be submitted to the Assistant Commissioner.

Sri.v.Basavaraj Wodiyar Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 9914 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9914 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.V.BASAVARAJ WODIYAR

¶10

S/O LATE K N VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO KONDARAHALLI VILLAGE MADIVALA POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563130

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed (BY SRI. SHIVAGONDAPPA by JUANITA SUBHASHCHANDRA.,ADVOCATE)(PH) THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF AND: KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT REVENUE

¶14

M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT-563101 TAMAKA NATIONAL HIGHWAY ROAD,

¶16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT 563101 TAMAKA, N.H. HIGHWAY ROAD,

¶17

THAHASILDAR MALUR TALUK, MALUR 563130

¶18

¶19

WP No. 9914 of 2022

¶20

TALUK SURVEYOR MALUR TALUK, MALUR 563130

¶21

K MUNISWAMY S/O Y KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GANDHI CIRCLE, MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT 563130

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR. A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)(PH)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-2 VIDE NO. RAP NO. 8/2020 DTD. 30.03.2002 AS PER ANNX-G; TO CANCEL THE GRANT MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE R-6 VIDE ORDER DTD. 16.07.2003 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO. 48 (134) OF BELLAVI VILLAGE, MALUK TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT AS PER ANNX-H AND J RESPECTIVELY.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶28

Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed

¶29

to take notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Notice to respondent No.6 is not necessary for the following reason.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 9914 of 2022

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.03.2022, passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District, in dispute bearing No.RAP.8/2020.

¶33

It is the contention of the petitioner that earlier, when the revenue authorities declined to enter the name of the petitioner in the Land Revenue Records in respect of old Sy.No.48 and new Sy.No.134 situated at Bellavi Village, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.25978/2014. This Court, by order dated 11.06.2014, directed the Tahsildar to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months. When the directions issued by this Court were not complied with, the petitioner approached the Contempt Court in CCC.No.490/2015. However, during the course of the proceedings, it was submitted that the Tahsildar passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the contempt proceedings were closed. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have filed one

¶34

¶35

WP No. 9914 of 2022

¶36

more appeal under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, challenging the grant said to have been made in favour of respondent No.6, since, according to the petitioner, there was overlapping of the lands, at least in some portion. The Assistant Commissioner directed that the matter be placed before the Tahsildar, Malur Taluk, to find out whether there was any overlapping of the lands granted. Not being satisfied, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner and filed a second appeal under Section 50 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 30.03.2022, rejecting the appeal while upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who had directed that the matter be placed before the Tahsildar, who was required to verify, after conducting a survey, as to whether there was any overlapping of the lands granted to the two parties.

¶37

On hearing the learned counsel for the

¶38

petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate

¶39

¶40

WP No. 9914 of 2022

¶41

and on perusing the petition papers, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned orders passed by the

¶42

Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner. When it is the contention of the petitioner that there has been overlapping of the lands, which is now in the possession of the petitioner and which has been granted to respondent No.6, at least a portion of it is overlapping, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly directed the Tahsildar to conduct a survey and find out whether there was any overlapping.

¶43

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, however, it is directed that the Tahsildar, Malur Taluk, shall conduct the survey in the presence of both the parties so as to ensure that the grievance of the parties are considered in accordance with law and a report to be submitted to the Assistant Commissioner.

¶44

¶45

WP No. 9914 of 2022

¶46

The Tahsildar shall conclude the survey and submit a report to the Assistant Commissioner as directed

¶47

by the Assistant Commissioner in his order dated 28.06.2018, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri.v.Basavaraj Wodiyar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.v.Basavaraj Wodiyar 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

Mr M a Colasco Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. v. Shantharam Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Abdul Quadar Mukka Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagamma Vs the Secretary

Sri Gangaraju Vs the State of Karnataka