Allowed

Marigowda v. the Tahsildar

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023WP/1153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for regularization of unauthorized land cultivation, the court directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the pending application and pass an appropriate order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the application Form No. 53 dated 01.12.1998 and pass an appropriate order within three months.

Marigowda Vs the Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1153 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1153 OF 2023 (KLR-REG)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MARIGOWDA S/O. BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT KAREKURA VILLAGE, BELGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 607.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MS. VINUTHA S. K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SHOWRI H. R., AGA)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS ON FORM NO. 53 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED IN THE 1998 ANNEXURE A TO TAKE ACTION FOR REGULARIZATION OF THE UNAUTHORIZED CULTIVATION OF ONE ACRE OF GOVERNMENT LAND IN SY.NO. 342 OF BELAGOLA VILLAGE, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGPATNA TALUK.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

WP No. 1153 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Ms. Vinutha.S.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to initiate the proceedings on Form No.53 (Annexure-A) dated 01.12.1998 to regularize the unauthorized occupation of 01 acre of land in Sy.No.342 of Belagola Village, Srirangapatna Taluk. It is submitted that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation in the land stated above for the past 30 years. The petitioner submitted Form No.53 (Annexure-A) on 01.12.1998 and the said application is pending consideration before the respondentTahsildar. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to Annexure-B, Official Memorandum dated 25.02.1999, wherein, the Deputy Tahsildar has suggested the Revenue Inspector to verify Form No.53 and submit the

¶23

¶24

WP No. 1153 of 2023

¶25

report within a week. But it is the grievance of the petitioner that no further action is taken on the application of the petitioner.

¶26

Learned AGA on the other hand would submit that

¶27

the application-Form No.53 would be considered in accordance with law within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶28

The petitioner claims that the petitioner is in possession and cultivation of the land to an extent of 01 acre in Sy.No.342 of Belagola Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk for the past 30 years and the petitioner submitted Form No.53 at Annexure-A dated 01.12.1998 praying for regularization of the unauthorized occupation. The said application is pending consideration. The respondent-Tahsildar is legally obliged to take action in terms of Rule 108CC of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. As the respondent-Tahsildar has failed to perform his statutory duty, the petitioner would be entitled for direction as prayed in the writ petition. Hence, the following:

¶29

¶30

WP No. 1153 of 2023

¶31

ORDER

¶32

i. The respondent-Tahsildar is directed to consider the application-Form-53 at Annexure-A dated 01.12.1998 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

ii. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66

Marigowda v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marigowda v. the Tahsildar

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. Francis Samraj. S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Honnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Nanjundegowda Vs Chief Secretary

Sri Hanumantharayappa Vs the Headquarters Assistant

Smt. Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dasashetty Vs the Chief Secretary