Disposed

Sri Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/1454/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner-owned plantation properties damaged by silted Hemavathi canal filed writ under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution seeking direction to clean canal and remove silt. Court directed respondents to consider representations and pass orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within 4 weeks.

Sri Girish Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1454 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1454 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GIRISH, S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 202.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HEMAVATHI CANAL DIVISION, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU – 572 102.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.4, H.L.B.C.DIVISION, C.N.N.L. (HEMAVATHI CANAL DIVISION),

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1454 of 2023

¶18

TURUVEKERE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 201.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REPAIR THE DAMAGED CANAL AND REMOVE THE SILT DEPOSITED FROM THE HEMAVATHI CANAL BEARING NO.T.BC.-D7 AND DISTRIBUTORY CANAL AND OTHER SUB CANALS, WHICH IS CAUSING GREAT LOSS AND DAMAGE TO THE PLANTATIONS GROWING IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.01.2022, 29.01.2022, 01.02.2022 AND 02.02.2022 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - E1 TO E4 AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.V. Krishna, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to clean the canal and remove the silt deposited in the Hemavathi canal as is sought for in the prayer.

¶26

¶27

WP No. 1454 of 2023

¶28

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possession of plantation properties bearing Sy.No.35/1 measuring 2 acres and 06 guntas, Sy.No.34/1, measuring 1 acre and 08 guntas and Sy.No.34/2, measuring 2 acres and 27 guntas, Sy.No.34/3, measuring 1 acre and 08 guntas, totally measuring about 8 acres, all the properties are situated at Dunda Village, Kasaba Hobli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumkur District.

¶29

The petitioner on account of the silt deposited in the canals is unable to cultivate the coconut plantation, as the canal is full of silt. He has knocked at the doors of the respondents submitting representations seeking the removal of the silt and cleaning of the canal and also the rectification of the damage that is caused therein as described in terms of the representations dated 24.01.2022 29.01.202, 01.02.2022 and 02.02.2022. The non-consideration of the representation is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶30

The learned AGA on instructions would submit that the canal is intermittently cleaned, and silt is removed every time after the rainy season is over. The learned AGA would

¶31

¶32

WP No. 1454 of 2023

¶33

further submit that the representations of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed, if reasonable time is granted.

¶34

Since the representations are already a year old, as they were first submitted on 24.01.2022 and have gone unheeded, I deem it appropriate to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner for the purpose for which it is rendered and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

SJK

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Sri Girish v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Girish 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 N Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

B Prashanth Hegde Vs State Bank of India

K Guddappa Kottary Vs Bharat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Limited

Dr Dakshayini K Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Noor Zahara Khanum Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sirajin Basha Vs Sri. B.S. Yeddyurappa