Allowed

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023WP/100687/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a Tahsildar's endorsement rejecting a land grant claim, holding that an appellate authority had previously set aside the original grant. The petitioner's application must be considered, treating the subsequent purchaser as the applicant with all attached rights.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 29.11.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Ankola is set aside, and the Taluka Athikramana Sakramana Committee is directed to consider the petitioner's application for land gra

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 100687 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KAMALAKSHI W/O. SRIDHAR GUNAGA AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HILLUR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIOINER, UTTARA KANNADA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶14

Digitally signed MOHANKUMARB SHELAR byMOHANKUMARB SHELARDate: 2023.12.22 11:09:54 +0530

¶15

THE ASSISTNT COMMISSIONER, KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶16

THE THASHILDAR, ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶17

SAVITRI W/O. SHIVANAND GOUDA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HILLUR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶18

RENUKA D/O. SHIVANAND GOUDA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HILLUR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶20

TARA W/O. MANJUNATH GOUDA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HILLUR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶21

GANESH S/O. SHIVANAN GOUDA, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HILLUR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA, MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT. NO.5, SAVITRI W/O SHIVANAND GOUDA, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HILLUR VILLAGE, TQ: ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301.

¶22

MALINI W/O. JAGADISH NAYAK AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER HILLUR GRAM PANCHYAT, R/O HILLUR VILLAGE, TQ. ANKOLA, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301. …RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4, SRI. VINAY BHAT, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 8, SMT. MAMATA G. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.9)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 29.11.2022 BEARING NO. BHOOMI/VIVA/676/2022-23 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 07.07.2014 AND 19.01.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND E1 RESPECTIVELY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶29

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 29.11.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Ankola. This endorsement is issued pursuant to the application dated 04.11.2022 marked at Annexure-G addressed to Taluka Athikramana Sakramana Committee, Ankola (hereinafter referred to as ‘Committee’).

¶31

In the said application, the petitioner has made reference to the fact that his appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Kumta challenging grant of land bearing Sy.No.127 in favour of Shivanand Hammu Gouda to the extent of 2 acres is set aside and the matter is remitted to the committee for fresh consideration.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶33

As can be noticed from the records that the

¶34

petitioner had filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order dated 01.02.1997 passed by the Committee. Said appeal in LND.AP.SR.3/9798 was allowed by the order dated 29.06.1999, and the matter was remanded to the Committee, Ankola for fresh consideration in accordance with law. However, for reasons unknown, the Committee did not reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation/grant. It is also evident from the records that the Assistant Commissioner has addressed the letters to the Tahsildar, Ankola to take further action pursuant to the order passed in the aforementioned appeal. Those letters are marked at Annexures-D and D1.

¶35

In terms of Annexure-E, the petitioner had filed one more application on 07.07.2014 to the Tahsildar/Secretary of the Committee, Ankola to take further action pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner on 19.01.2019 has

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶37

also addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf.

¶38

The Tahsildar in terms of impugned endorsement dated 29.11.2022 has rejected the application on the premise that the property stands in the name of respondent No.9.

¶39

Respondent No.9 appears to have purchased the property in dispute under the registered sale deed dated 15.12.2017. This being the position, the petitioner is before this Court to challenge the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Ankola.

¶40

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 who claims to have purchased the property from the legal representatives of the original grantee.

¶41

The records would reveal that the order of grant

¶42

made by the Committee is set aside by the Assistant

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶44

Commissioner in exercise of power under Rule 108-D(6) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the committee. However, the Committee did not take up the application for consideration pursuant to the directions issued by the Assistant Commissioner.

¶45

In the meantime, since there was no change in the entries in the record to rights, respondent No.9 appears to have purchased the property from the legal representatives of the original grantee, though the grant order was set aside. The sale deed is dated 15.12.2017. Respondent No.9 appears to be a bonafide purchaser.

¶46

The Tahsildar in terms of impugned endorsement has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for placing the matter before the Committee on the premise that the property is already sold. This endorsement issued by the Tahsildar is not tenable in the eye of the law. There is already an order passed by the competent appellate authority which has set aside the

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶48

order of grant and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Hence, the Tahsildar is not justified in issuing the impugned endorsement. On the other hand, the Tahsildar is under obligation to place the matter before the committee. The order of the appellate Court which has attained finality must be given effect to and it should reach a logical conclusion. Accordingly, the impugned endorsement is set aside.

¶49

Accordingly, the Taluka Athikramana Sakramana Committee, Ankola shall consider the petitioner’s application for grant of land pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 29.06.1999.

¶50

It is also relevant to note that the purchaser/respondent No.9 appears to have purchased the property without being aware of the order setting aside the grant in favour of his vendor. The order setting aside the grant in favour of the vendor was not reflected in the revenue records. It is also relevant to note that when

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶52

respondent No.9 purchased the property, he has obtained necessary no-objection from the competent authority.

¶53

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the purchaser should be treated as an applicant in place of the original grantee with all rights attached to the original applicant, insofar as claim for the grant of land. If the committee is of the view that the original grantee was eligible for the grant, then the land should be granted in favour of respondent No.9.

¶54

In case, the committee is of the view that the original grantee is not entitled to the grant of land, then the respondent no.9 is entitled to seek appropriate relief against his vendors or the State which permitted the 9^th respondent to purchase the land in question.

¶55

Needless to state that the exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is further made clear that

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14824 WP No. 100687 of 2023

¶57

this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of

¶58

the case. Hence, the following :

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Writ petition is allowed in part as indicated above.

¶61

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 29.11.2022 issued by the Tahsildar, Ankola is set aside.

¶62

(iii) I.A.s, if any, do not survive for consideration.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalakshi W/O Sridhar Gunaga 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Ashok Bhimappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vinayaka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Vanaja D W/O Dr. Vinayka Prasanna K Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamanth S/O Laxman Biradar Patil Vs Balappa S/O Venkappa Biradar Patil

Ravi S/O Appun Devappa Vs Superintending Engineer(Ele)

The Management of Vs Shri G Prakashmurthy S/O Gangadarappa