Dismissed

Laxman S/O Basappa Jokanatti v. the Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023WP/111504/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged eviction orders against unauthorized land possession. Court dismissed petition as withdrawn pending separate survey challenge, granted interim stay, and preserved contentions without recording findings on survey correctness.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to challenge survey; interim stay of eviction for four weeks.

Laxman S/O Basappa Jokanatti Vs the Government of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14568 WP No. 111504 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 111504 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

LAXMAN S/O. BASAPPA JOKANATTI AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224.

¶9

BANAPPA S/O. BASAPPA JOKANATTI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELGAVI-591224.

¶10

MARUTI S/O. BASAPPA JOKANATTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224.

¶11

JAGADISH S/O. REVAPPA JOKANATTI, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.12.16 13:45:37 +0530

¶13

GURUPAD S/O. REVAPPA JOKANATTI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ. MUDALAGI, DIST: BELGAVI-591224.

¶14

SHIVAPPA S/O. REVAPPA JOKANATTI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224.

¶15

MUTTEPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA JOKANATTI AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14568 WP No. 111504 of 2019

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR, MUDALAGI TALUKA, MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶23

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, ARABHAVI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶24

THE TALUKA SURVEYOR OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶25

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, ARABHAVI, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591312.

¶26

MARUTI S/O. HALAPPA BAMMAVAGOL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TQ: MUDALAGI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591224. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R6, SMT. P. G. NAIK, ADV. FOR R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.KAM.NI.AA/VI.VA-764/2018-19 DATED 12.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.136 SITUATED AT RAJAPUR TALUK MUDALAGI AND TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.LND/VI.VA-95/2018-19 DATED 06.06.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ORDERING TO TAKE THE POSSESSION OF THE

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14568 WP No. 111504 of 2019

¶28

PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PETITIONERS AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.136 SITUATED AT RAJAPUR TALUK MUDALAGI.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 6 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7.

¶32

The petitioners are questioning the

¶33

communication dated 12.03.2019 issued by respondent No.6 marked at Annexure-A and also the order dated 06.06.2019 passed by respondent No.3 marked at Annexure-B. In terms of the communication dated 12.03.2019 marked at Annexure-A, the Revenue Inspector has addressed a letter to the Tahasilar, Mudalagi, wherein he has requested the Tahasildar, Mudalagi to extend time

¶34

to execute the order for delivery of possession to the owner of the property. The order dated 06.06.2019 marked at Annexure-B reveals that the Tahasildar,

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14568 WP No. 111504 of 2019

¶36

Mudalagi has issued a letter to the Revenue Inspector, Arambhavi to evict the encroacher of the property bearing Sy.Nos.136, 137, 138 and 139 of Rajapur village of Mudalagi taluk. The petitioners are before this Court on the premise that the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction to evict the petitioners even if the petitioners are assumed to be in possession as encroachers. He would contend that such a jurisdiction is vested with the Civil Court and not with any other Revenue Officer.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would contend that under Section 142 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the Tahasildar is empowered to evict the persons in unauthorized possession of the land after notice and after conducting survey.

¶38

It is also his contention that the order to evict the unauthorized encroacher is pursuant to the survey which has attained finality, as such, she would contend that writ petition is not maintainable.

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14568 WP No. 111504 of 2019

¶40

This Court has considered the contentions

¶41

raised at the bar.

¶42

On perusal of record placed before this Court and after considering the submission made before this Court, it appears that the order is issued by the Tahasildar directing the concerned Revenue Inspector to evict the persons in unauthorized possession of the property on the basis of PT sheet prepared in PT sheet No.784/2017-2018.

¶43

Admittedly, the aforementioned PT sheet is not questioned by the petitioners. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the direction issued by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Inspector to evict the petitioners from possession of the property, cannot be said to be the one without jurisdiction, particularly in the light of the order of the Division Bench interpreting Section 142 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in Devidas and Others vs.

¶44

The Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar and others, 2008 (2) Karnataka Law Journal

¶45

450 (DB).

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14568 WP No. 111504 of 2019

¶47

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners will approach the competent forum challenging the alleged survey and alleged PT report on the premise that the petitioners were not notified before conducting the alleged survey. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent forum challenging the survey, if any, already conducted.

¶48

It is further made clear that the time spent in prosecuting the present writ petition from 01.07.2019 till date, is to be excluded in computing the limitation, if any, questioning the alleged survey.

¶49

It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion either of the claim of the petitioners or of the contesting respondent No.7.

¶50

All contentions are kept open.

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14568 WP No. 111504 of 2019

¶52

In case, any challenge is laid to the alleged

¶53

survey, same shall be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as this Court has not recorded any finding on the correctness of the alleged survey.

¶54

Registry to return the certified copies of the impugned orders to the petitioners after obtaining the xerox copies.

¶55

It is also relevant to note that the petitioners had the benefit of interim order. The respondent-Tahsildar shall not take any steps to evict the petitioners from possession of the properties in dispute for a period of four weeks from today.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

KGK,CHS/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38S

Laxman S/O Basappa Jokanatti v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman S/O Basappa Jokanatti v. the Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Bhimappa S/O Durgappa Simikeri Vs the Commercial Tax Officer Audit - 2

Smt. Laxmawwa W/O Gyanappa Shivanagutti, Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Naveenkumar Parasappa Waddar Vs Registrar Evaluation

Sri.Ramesh B.Y. Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayashree D/O Shankrappa Nalagar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamant S/O. Shankar Patil Vs the Management Nwkrtc