Disposed

Smt Sunandamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023WP/26018/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a preliminary order in a writ petition filed for regularization and allotment of B-Kharab land. The High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider representations and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent to consider representations and pass orders for regularization or refusal within two months.

Smt Sunandamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45440 WP No. 26018 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 26018 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SUNANDAMMA W/O SHIVAKUMAR, AND D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶9

SMT GAYATHRI W/O NARAYANSWAMY, AND D/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶10

SRI MANJUNATH N S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT KAVITHA W/O NAGARAJU, AND D/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶13

ALL ARE R/AT SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 097

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:45440 WP No. 26018 of 2023

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ GODACHI, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE/ALLOT THE A KHARAB LAND IN SY.NO.109 MEASURING 18 GUNTAS SITUATED AT SINGAPURA VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, AFTER COLLECTING THE NECESSARY CHARGES BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DTD 16.8.2023 AND 18.10.2023 AT ANNEXURES-B AND C AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶26

The petitioners who claim to be the owners of 1 acre and 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.123/1 of Singapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, have given a representation dated 16.08.2023 to the respondent -Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners are seeking grant of 18 guntas of B-Kharab land, on the ground that, firstly, there is no B-Kharab land and

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:45440 WP No. 26018 of 2023

¶29

even if it is so, the petitioners have already put the same into cultivation. Therefore, it is prayed that if it is permissible to collect the fine on B-Kharab portion of the land and grant the same to the petitioners, the respondent should do so.

¶30

Having gone through the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent-Deputy Commissioner is required to consider the representation and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶31

If the respondent is of the considered opinion that the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted, then while assigning reasons, an endorsement may be issued to the petitioners. If the respondent is of the opinion that fine can be imposed and it is impermissible in law to grant the 18 guntas of land, then appropriate orders may be passed by the respondent by collecting the fine and granting/regularizing the B-Kharab portion of land in accordance with law.

¶32

The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:45440 WP No. 26018 of 2023

¶34

¶35

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

rv CT:JL

Smt Sunandamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunandamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Smt Reshmi Devi Vs State of Karnataka

Bitsport Private Limited Vs Union of India

Mr. S. K. Basavarajan Vs State of Karnataka by

Karnataka Parishista and Alpa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H N Suresh Kumar Vs the Commissioner

M L Srinath Vs Union of India