Disposed

Sri. Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023WP/3857/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order passed by the Tahsildar regarding encroachment on a cart road. Court dismissed the petition with liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and extended an interim order for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach competent authority under Section 104 KLR Act. Interim order continued for four weeks.

Sri. Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:38515 WP NO.3857 OF 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3857 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MOHAN S/O KURIKAMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT DODDABIDARAKALLU VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶10

SRI. ASHOKE @ ASHOKAN S/O NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT DODDABIDARAKALLU VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶11

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT. RENUKA D/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT MELURU VILLAGE, MELURU POST, SIDALAGHATTA VILLAGE, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 562 105.

¶13

SMT. NETRAVATHI W/O KUSHAL H., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.280, ASHWATHAPPA BUILDING, IST MAIN ROAD, CHIKKABDRAKALLU VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:38515 WP NO.3857 OF 2023

¶16

SRI. HAIRSH S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, BEGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 120.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K.G., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

SRI. RAMACHANDRAN K. R/AT NO.7/1, 12^TH 'K' MAIN ROAD, MUTHYALANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 054.

¶23

SRI. PUTTAIAH S/O HANUMAIAH, AGE: MAJOR.

¶24

SRI. T.N. GOVINDAGOWDA FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGE: MAJOR.

¶25

SRI. BAIRAPPA FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR.

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38515 WP NO.3857 OF 2023

¶27

SRI. B. VEEERABHADRAIAH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR.

¶28

SRI. KRISHNADESAI S/O APPARAO AGE: MAJOR.

¶29

SRI. BALARAM FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE: MAJOR.

¶30

RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE R/AT DODDABIDRAKALLU VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11^TH JANUARY, 2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.LND(Y)CR/120/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

Heard Sri. Sadashivaiah K.G., learned counsel appearing

¶37

for petitioners; Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:38515 WP NO.3857 OF 2023

¶40

Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 argued that, order dated 11^th January, 2023 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 impugned in this writ petition is an appealable order under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of exhausting an alternative remedy by the petitioners.

¶41

Sri. Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that, in view of pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-Authorities are not in a position to allow the public to ingress in the Road and on the other hand he argued that, as the respondents herein have directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment made in the existing Cart Road, same has been not followed by the petitioners.

¶42

However, learned counsel appearing for petitioners disputed the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate and submits that the petitioners have

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:38515 WP NO.3857 OF 2023

¶45

not interfered with the existing Cart Road as alleged by the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶46

Taking into consideration the factual aspects on record and taking into account that the remedy is provided under the aforesaid Act to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 104 of the Act, I am of the view that liberty be given to the petitioners to approach the competent authority in accordance with law. Accordingly, reserving such liberty to the petitioners, writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

In order to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to avail the said remedy under the Act, interim order granted by this Court on 10^th April, 2023 shall continue for another four weeks from today.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

ARK

Sri. Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohan 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 S Maligappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.C. Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Avalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kumara Raja S Vs Thasildar

Bhandarkar'S Arts and Science College Trust Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Narayanappa