Dismissed

Sri.K.P.Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/3992/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order regarding forest land encroachment, the court dismissed the petition after the petitioner voluntarily absconded the matter, directing respondents to recover possession.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. Respondents directed to take further action to recover possession of the encroached area and submit a report.

Sri.K.P.Mohan Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36385 WP No. 3992 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3992 OF 2015 (GM-FOR)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. K.P.MOHAN S/O. LATE T.K.KUNHAMBU NAIR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT. HILLTOP, KENYA HOUSE, AITHOOR VILLAGE, SUNKADAKKATTE POST, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K DISTRICT 574230

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. B.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDAKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER MANGALORE D.K DISTRICT - 575001

¶13

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OFFICER SULLIA, SULLIA TALUK, D.K DISTRICT - 574230

¶14

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER SUBRAMANIYA RANGE, SUBRAMANIYA SULLIA TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574238

¶15

THE SPECIAL THASILDAR KADABA, KADABA POST,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36385 WP No. 3992 of 2015

¶17

PUTTUR TALUK, D.K DISTRICT 574221

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER / NOTICE PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DTD.21.1.2015 VIDE ANNEX-J AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

In compliance with the direction dated 21.09.2023, a survey was conducted on 04.10.2023 and the report is placed before this Court which indicated that the petitioner has indeed encroached into a portion of the forest land measuring 01 acre 25 cents.

¶23

The report submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate is accepted.

¶24

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would not pursue the writ petition and prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:36385 WP No. 3992 of 2015

¶27

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed.

¶28

However, the respondents are directed to take further action to recover possession of the area encroached by the petitioner and submit a report to this Court by or before 12.10.2023.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Sri.K.P.Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.P.Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. N. Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Keshava Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Excel Dwelling India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Nikeata Jha Vs the State of Karnataka

Presidency School Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt Bharathi Vs the State of Karnataka